Despite a lot of speculation, I doubt it. Everyone’s probably now aware that the rumours that the show would be immediately cancelled after the Ash/John alleged sexual assault incident were incorrect, as the usual eviction show went to air tonight and Gaelan was ousted. Very little was said on the eviction show about the incident and their removal from the house, but apparently they may be making an appearance on the noms show tomorrow night.
Unsurprisingly there’s a lot of commentary around, and Jess at Ausculture has the details on what actually transpired. A few points need to be made. Politicians from all ends of the political spectrum have been calling for the cessation of the show, with Peter Beattie the only supporter – as Tim Blair notes, because of the value and jobs generated by its production in Queensland. But none appear to have taken into account (perhaps they didn’t know) that the incident wasn’t seen on tv at all – but only by those watching an internet live feed at 4.30am (for which you have to pay). This is an important point because it goes to the broader issues around BB’s business model. I doubt anyone at Southern Star Endemol or Channel 10 cried any tears when the Adults Only show was pulled after several conservative pollies objected to it. A lot of the money BB generates is through subscription only feeds available on the web and its tie-in with mobile telco 3 and live streaming on 3 mobiles. Any controversy or any perception that the content of the various shows is diluted will only increase revenues among the fan base looking for “uncensored” or “unedited” content. And of course it won’t harm the show’s already impressive ratings either. So it’s difficult to see the cries of those who would like to see BB killed as anything other than unintended assists to the show’s reach through non-televisual media and therefore the profits of Ten, Southern Star Endemol and the various corporates who sponsor or deliver live feeds.
You have to suspect that politicians really don’t understand how new media and the sort of multi-medium marketing BB is built on works. Draw attention to the mild face of the daily show, and you send people scuttling off to see “the real thing” online or via their phones and everyone makes more money.
The other irony is that the same people who decry BB as obscene, or as reflecting dangerous social trends, are very often the same ones who would like to insert Australia’s public broadcasters into these commercial networks of money and influence – a topic well covered by David Tiley at Barista.
As to the incident itself, I largely agree with Dan at Tubagooba:
I think it would be tremendous if the police were to prosecute these two guys.
For the record, I have no problem at all with sex or nudity or anything else that happens on BB, as long as it’s consensual and as long as any broadcast properly informs its viewers beforehand about what they’re going to see. I’m not any kind of wowser – my issue is with the degrading nature of what happened.
In fact the police are not investigating further because the victim of the assault, Camilla, has declined to press charges. But I think it’s wrong to think that this sort of behaviour, though it does provide a disturbing role model, isn’t happening anyway regardless of reality tv. And those who claim that it’s some sort of evidence of rapidly declining standards of behaviour are also wrong.
In the early 1990s, I worked with others in a group called Men Against Sexual Assault at Queensland University. One of the things we did was to attend events such as the justly infamous UQ Toga Party to try to intervene and prevent sexual assaults from taking place. Not as security, but as sort of peer educators and resources. I’d previously been involved in supporting the victim of a sexual assault at the Toga Party through various University procedures in 1988. Much worse things were happening in large enough proportions to be disturbing, and to suggest that they were part of a culture of misogyny, and alcohol related sexual violence, among the cream of Australia’s youth at Sandstone Unis a decade and a half ago. I’d be very surprised indeed if anything much has changed, and very surprised if behaviour much worse than that of Ash and John isn’t happening at all sorts of parties, pubs and clubs every night of the week all over Australia. By all means condemn their behaviour, but one irony of all this might be that good might come out of bad if more people focus on the causes and malign effects of such “playful” behaviour. If that occurs, it will be because the incident has been discussed, not censored. The greatest obstacle to any attempts by mens’ and womens’ and college students’ groups to change behaviour at Queensland Uni were the conservative University and College authorities who’d rather it wasn’t known, and who were outraged it was being talked about.
For what it’s worth, I think the response of BB himself on the daily show to an appalling and serious incident was appropriate. Though I wouldn’t say the same for Gretel Killeen’s response. The question of the preconditions of the incident’s occurrence – which are very much tied to what sells and the commercial nature of television – are another issue altogether, as I’ve been arguing.
Elsewhere: Aside from the links in the post, there’s more discussion at two peas, no pod from Cristy, Jo Jacobs’ place, Blogger on a Cast Iron Balcony, Armagnac’d and Lightning Struck Itself.
Update: And more reaction from Andrew Bartlett and Pavlov’s Cat.
People actually pay to watch that stuff? On their mobiles?? Thats sad.
The Beazer nails it:(From Tim Blair)
“If my advice is worth anything to the folk who run Channel 10, and how they choose to conduct themselves is their business, I’d say ‘make this Big Brother the last’,� he said.
Queensland Labor premier Peter Beattie doesn’t agree:
Queensland taxpayers will continue investing in the production of Big Brother, despite the program’s latest controversy …
State Premier Peter Beattie says the financial incentive has helped secure lighting and camera jobs on the Gold Coast.
“We do not have enough television production in this country,â€? he said.
“And frankly I’m sick of the sort of American crap we get on our television every night and I don’t mind seeing a little bit of Australian rubbish – it can’t be any worse than the sort of American rubbish we see.â€?
I guess if you asked this priceless idiot would he want his daughter/sister/wife on the show he’d probably answer the same way my BB fan and 19 yr old daughter did when I posed her that question to which she answered ‘Are you nuts dad?’
Not as nuts as Peter Beattie apparently dearie.
“And frankly I’m sick of the sort of American crap we get on our television every night and I don’t mind seeing a little bit of Australian rubbish – it can’t be any worse than the sort of American rubbish we see.â€?
Now is this left racism or just quintessential pomo rubbish?
Neither, I suspect, obs. You’re weird, dude.
I linked to Tim Blair in the post itself.
What did you reply?
Can the two be separated?
Also, didn’t it seem odd to you that the two were left in the house until the next evening, after the concert performance? Was that just to make sure that the band didn’t have to come in to a house on a total downer? If so, that seems pretty cynical to me.
I think you’re right that this sort of behaviour was happening well before BB and it would be happening now regardless of BB, but it seems likely to me that this incident will inspire copycats. Around the various blogs and forums, there are already a minority of guys ready to anoint Ashley and John as “legends”. That’s not to say that they would necessarily be going out on turkey-slapping binges of their own, but if the particular mix of alcohol and blokiness happens to be right, it’s not difficult to imagine.
You’re right that this incident has been linked in by Senator Coonan and others to the ongoing concerns about sex and nudity on TV, ignoring the fact that this event never was on TV, and presumably never will be. The think-of-the-children moral-decline-of-society reflex is easily activated, but in this case it seems totally beside the point. Anyone can see video of it on YouTube, but anyone can see video of all sorts of things on the internet, many of which are much nastier than this from a T&A perspective.
As for the future of BB, that will all depend on the sponsors’ reactions, which will in turn depend on the amount of enduring negative publicity that this event generates. Does “Do You 3?” take on new meaning in light of this particular threesome? To say nothing of Starburst fruit chews.
Beattie makes public statements like that and I’m the weird dude? If you say so.
The Gretel question is a good one, Dan, but I do tend to think she’s inclined to put her own individual spin on things and it’s often much more favourable to the blokes in particular than what they deserve.
As to the timing, it’s hard to say. It’s possible to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they probably would have had lawyers looking at the contracts that housemates had signed, but it’s certainy not impossible that it was cynical.
Some discussion on some blogs and forums – one example being the “contributions” of “shagger” on Jessculture’s thread – to which I won’t link directly as I’d delete anything similar the moment I saw it here has been appalling and disgusting. But I’m not sure that BB is anything other than its proximate cause – there are young men and boys with really awful attitudes now and as I’ve argued, there were years before reality tv too.
I also decided not to link to the youtube footage.
What was la Kileen’s response?
The sort of typical “they were great housemates and fine young fellas but sadly they broke the rules” type stuff you’d have expected.
The incident is down to blokiness, but not alcohol. There was no alcohol after midnight, and the incident did not happen till 4AM. They were both well and truly sober.
A few of the HMs were still awake at that hour, probably due to the V they were drinking, which contains ephedra.
John’s real name is Michael Bric. He has a Myspace site, recently deleted, but it can be retrieved from cache.
Google “cache:http://www.myspace.com/micbric”
Many people can’t believe that he would sexually harrass anyone, but the tagline on his Myspace site belies this. It reads “Gangbanging aint dead baby!!!!!!!”.
Hey, Mark it looks like Observer will be just the person those US production companies are looking for to sell the merits of their programs to our overly cautious broadcasters. But to be a true Pro-America free-marketer Obbie you’ve got to trumpet the virtues of “OC”, “The L Word”, “Queer as Folk”, “Popetown”, “The Daily Show”, “Cheaters” – no time for any wowser virtues when there is a buck to made. And of course the ANZAC alliance demands it of you. For If Western values are going to be ignored we may as well hand the programming controls over to the one-eyed Sheik Omar whose favourite programme is the SBS test-pattern (which can be so raunchy after witnessing a couple of executions).
I can’t believe you got that comment past the spam filter, silkworm.
I remove my beret in an act of silent respect.
Stephen – heh.
As a fan of The OC, the L Word and Queer as Folk, I can do nothing but wholeheartedly agree.
“there are young men and boys with really awful attitudes now and as I’ve argued, there were years before reality tv too.”
True enough but what sort of slow public drip,drip message does BB send to those at the margins of society and I’m thinking here of the men involved with Diane Brimble’s death and the attitude of one John Silvestri in particular. Interesting how Beattie can call BB rubbish when he sees it. Now a middle class kid like my daughter can also watch BB and recognise the same rubbish when asked if she’s so keen on it, would she like to participate in it. However is that true for all our society?
IMO liberals or even libertarians here at LP make that mistake in assuming their value judgement capability, honed by their parents and peers, is so obvious to all. That’s a tougher call and could well be a fallacy of composition. It may be we need more public approbrium and nagging by the Beazleys for those that matter to listen.(ie TV stations) The penalty for getting it publicly wrong may be quite harsh for some and we have to be acutely aware of those at the margins of society http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19650920-1246,00.html?from=rss There are some worrying signs anecdotally these days that we are.
Hands up those at LP who are totally confident mum and dad would be thrilled to bits at the news they were joining BB? Anyone want that for their son or daughter? You need to be quite sure your BB stance isn’t founded largely on hypocrisy she’ll be right like my daughter. What’s good for families is usually good for society.
I’d happily spend a couple of weeks in the Big Brother house if it meant I could have some quality time away from Obs.
O-Oh, he’s after me again……
But my point, observa, is that what keeps BB on air is the commercial logic of commercial televesion.
That’s the contradiction Coonan and her ilk won’t address. And indeed the other contradiction – that they want the same commercial logic extended to the ABC and SBS.
Going back to your question, Christine, the take from the Behind Big Brother website on Gretel’s statement is here:
http://www.behindbigbrother.com/showarticle.php?articleID=938
I’m also going to be interested to see if Coonan is held to account for being an idiot:
http://www.behindbigbrother.com/showarticle.php?articleID=937
And Steve Fielding demonstrates his grasp of logic:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv–radio/big-brother-in-bigger-bother/2006/07/02/1151778811490.html
I expected at any moment to hear La Killeen say: ‘This
electionproduction is abouttrusttaste.’BB has lost the plot this season. Even before this incident they had a group of 3 or 4 house-mates who regularly nominated both gay housemates for eviction, complained bitterly about the coalition of The Gays and their attempt to infiltrate the coalition of The Girls, and were clearly running an allegedly forbidden alliance strategy. The mythical lie detector was not all that flash either.
Their initial treatment of this incident was fine. Exploiting an alleged sexual assault for the sake of lifting the ratings is one of the less distinguished efforts I’ve seen on TV.
In the first series one of the housemates was someone I’d known slightly a few years earlier while studying the same course (no juicy revelations to offer, we only ever had half a dozen conversations). Back then I thought BB was tacky but largely OK, and wouldn’t have been horrified to have someone else I knew tell me they were going on the show.
Back then the average age of the housemates was about 5 years older. I definitely would attempt to dissuade anyone I knew from going on it now.
Calls for the show to be ended are a bit kneejerk and worse: what they tap into is the notion that this is somehow a product of the conditions on big brother. Why else would you shut it down, it makes no sense, the scenes weren’t shown on mainstream tv.
The problem with that is that it diverts people from acknowledging that what we saw was in fact common conduct, reflecting not a need to shut down reality TV but rather a need to educate people better.
Through this, the Merlin affair,and the general quality (or lack thereof) of person who succeeds on the show, we get an illuminating look at the cross the board failure of society and in particular our education system to inculcate a civilised system of values into mainstream yoof.
Oh and can I say I don’t accept the traditional police practice of only prosecuting where the victim wants it prosecuted. Criminal prosecution is a matter of public interest, and in those rare cases such as this where the evidence can be obtained independently they should give it a shot. Their failure just confirms to other males with self control issues that, due to peer pressure etc they are unlikely to ever get punished.
Agreed. Current “raunch” culture has a big problem in labelling any woman who objects to being sexually degraded as simply “unadventurous” or wowserish, which is the social kiss of death.
A bit of raunch – young healthy horny people having fun – hooray for them all.
Omnipresent oversexualised interactions – not so much.
Yeah it links wowserism about sex generally with excusing sexual assault.
I have no problem with them having a threesome, I have a problem with the fact that they sprang something on her with no possibility of consent being obtained.
I think in general there is surprisingly little sex on this show. I’m quite surprised, even annoyed, at how a bunch of young singletons stuck in a house together with nothing else to do can’t find it in themselves to hook up a bit more.
The idea that date-rapey conduct and sexual permissiveness go hand in hand is misleading and dangerous.
You mean this kind of specious argument Armaniac?
The kind of slimebag who’d return us to the days when men had ‘a duty’ to beat their wives to keep them in line, women who were raped were often asking for it, and abused children who spoke about it were liars because after all adults were all going around being perfect monogamous family types.
So dishonest it’s nasty.
So Paul Gray wants to blame Richard Nevile and seems more offended that people were “crass” rather than that they tortured, sexually assaulted and killed somone? Go the traditional morality!
From what I have heard, the treatment of the incident on last night’s show was pretty bad. It sounds like the two male housemates involved were talked up and Gretel pointedly commented that it was “such a shame to lose them from the show”.
i.e. “We still think that they are great guys, but because of those damn rules we had to let them go. Such a shame…”
That does not seem like the right message to be putting across. It completely undermines earlier statements that this was a serious incident.
It’s the moustaches, Mark. Richard Neville had one, so did Hitler and Stalin. Think of the victims!
Some more commentary.
Andrew Bartlett:
http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=268
Pavlov’s Cat:
http://pavlovblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/some-thoughts-on-big-brother-kerfuffle.html
I just read that article. It made me furious – especially this section:
This follows on from a list of actions committed solely by men – calling women sexist names, trying to shave their pubic hair off, making unwanted approaches to young women and requesting to ‘go down on them’, the use of a date rape drug, taking photos of a woman being raped, etc…
Yes, 50 per cent of the blame must lie with women.
Grrrrrrrrrrr!
I just hope that the same level of media attention, political involvement, and academic analysis afforded to the Brimble case and the Big brother case, is afforded to that 8 year old kid who got raped and murdered in perth.
I hope that academics analyse it, politicians debate it in parliament, and the media watch it like a hawk.
I hope that the 21 yo murderer isn’t back out on the streets at 35yo.
the Big brother model is just a subset of the modern media/political/Public debate model of filling the world with trivia and selling adspace, while real evil flys under the radar
I’m sure someone’s already said this (sorry i’ve been out of the loop for a few days) but I can’t beleive Gretel Kileen said the men were chucked out because they broke important Big Brother rules.
Sexual harrassment is against the Big Brother rules – but it’s OK everywhere else?
Gretel’s schtick has always been about being a “one of the boys” gal who wasn’t like all those other whiny women. She was a clever comedian, and wrangling the BB crowd takes some skill, but she’s never been into the sisterhood thing. I’m not surprised she’s all for the boys – she always has been.
I think the other subtext is that they’re probably concerned – given that no charges have been pressed – at legal action from Ash and John about their reputations. Which as I keep pointing out is another commercial consideration. Isn’t the moral of all this that morals and money don’t mix?
Tigtog, I disagree heartily about Gretel and housemates, although I don’t know much about how she appeared earlier in her career.
If you look at Gretel’s interactions with inmates on eviction nights and subsequently broadcast programs, she has been much harder on males than females.
On the broader issue, the conduct itself and comments such as those made about Camilla at ausculture are disgraceful. I have always thought those two were complete ‘ken idiots. Did they think they weren’t being filmed or something?
(and as for observa, and his call for more “public approbrium (fully sic) and nagging” to protect those marginal youf – you’re priceless, dude)
Latest from Howard via the SMH -
Shorter Howard: Self regulate = do what I say. The irony is delicious!
C’mon true conservatives, say something, you should be outraged!…..
“…………….”
I am prefacing all my comments on this with the statement that “I hate Big Brother”.
Having seen the way this story is being portrayed on Sky News, one potentially positive message that is coming across is footage of Camilla saying – in effect – ‘No means No’. The incident is being seen by people in a myriad of different ways – mostly the one that reinforces their pre-determined views, not surprisingly – but one message that could be taken out of it is that, no matter how much people are fooling around and how ‘playful’ things might be, there is a line that simply cannot be crossed without unequivocal consent.
There are legitimate and quite difficult debates to be had about exploitative media, objectification of women, so-called raunch culture etc. I admit I don’t really know what the right approach is, as there are many conflicting principles involved, and dark forces on all sides which can get legimation along the way.
However, until I see politicians or other public figures take on the alcohol industry in a similarly strong and unequivocal way for advertising which encourages sexually predatory behaviour, and against the music and TV industry for screening – in prime children’s viewing time on a Saturday morning – innumerable music video clips which objectify, commodify and sexualise women in a one-dimensional way, then I can only assume those who are currently jumping on the ‘axe Big Brother’ bandwagon are just a pack of hypocrits trying to pick on an easy target to build up their ‘moral’ credentials.
Beautifully said Andrew. I am shocked that they have all focused on the show rather than the incident or the specific behaviour (and impact) in question. Using the controversy as an opportunity to focus on the campaign against gender-based violence in Australia would have been far more appropriate.
Oh come on Christy !! “campaign against gender-based violence” what a load of crap!
She jumped into bed with a guy at 4.30am and got turkey slapped – no big deal!
Apollo:
Exhibit number 4,894,563 in the need for more education around issues of sexual harrassment, gender-based violence, and the attitudes that underlie them in Australia.
Make up your mind from the evidence, Cristy.
The last thing we need is more education! the Australian education system is 100 times more effective than the priesthood.
(at abusing young boys that is)
Bridget Mary Nolan, 24, of Adelaide, Australia, is facing a possible seven-year prison term after admitting to three counts of sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old student in late July.
Natalina D’Addario, a 36-year-old languages instructor from the Melbourne area is accused of beginning a sexual relationship with the teen in May.
These two cases are the latest in a series of Australian women having illicit relations with their male students.
Cindy Leanne Howell, a female teacher’s aide, was sentenced last month to at least two and a half years for preying on a 15-year-old boy;
Sarah Jayne Vercoe was sentenced to four years for a series of sex offenses against five boys in Tasmania.
Karen Ellis of Victoria was jailed in May after pleading guilty to six charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16.
The Australian incidents are hauntingly reminiscent of the flood of cases reported in the United States and elsewhere.
google up these names for Christy
Adrianne Hockett, Amber Jennings, Amber Marshall, Amira Sa’Si, Amy Gail Lilley, Angela Stellwag, Beth Raymond, Bethany Sherrill, Carol Flannigan, Celeste Emerick,Christina Gallagher,Deanna Bobo, Donna Carr Galloway, Elisa Kawasaki, Elizabeth Miklosovic, Elizabeth Stow, Ellen Garfield, Emily Morris, Erica Rutters, Georgianne Harrell, Gwen Ann Cardozo, Heather Ingram, Janelle Marie Bird, Jaymee Wallace, Joan Marie Sladky,
Katherine Tew, Kathy White, Kelly Lynn Dalecki, Kristen Margrif, Kristi Dance Oakes, Lakina Stutts, Laura-Anne Brownlee, Laura Lynn Findlay, Margaret De Barraicua, Maria Saco, Mary Kay Letourneau, Melissa Michelle Deel, Michelle Kush,Nicola Prentice,Nicole Andrea Barnhart, Nicole Pomerleau, Pamela Smart,Pamela Turner, Rachelle Vantucci, Rebecca Boicelli, Rhianna Ellis, Robin Gialanella, Robin Winkis, Samantha Solomon, Sandra “Beth” Geisel, Shelley Allen, Shelley White, Stephanie Burleson
Susan Eble, Tara Lynn Crisp, Toni Lynn Woods,
Clearly Appollo (sic) is a man with a barrow to push. But I got my LOL of the day so far from the sight of someone who can’t spell Apollo (and I bet he doesn’t look like him, either) saying that the last thing we need is more education.
Not to mention all the other shite.
Pavlov, I’m guessing there’s one small aspect in which our friend fronts up like Apollo.
‘(and as for observa, and his call for more “public approbrium (fully sic) and naggingâ€? to protect those marginal youf – you’re priceless, dude)’
Cheeky young whippersnapper!
Right alongside other priceless dudes like Kim Beazley and John Howard, but then perhaps we happen to be experienced parents rather than single undergrads or BB airheads. The latter only get trusted to run student unions until such time as their shortcomings are too obvious even to their peers
Peter Beattie typefies the phony left liberal progressive to a tee. You get the first Keynesian whiff of him as he lauds digging holes and filling them in again (producing rubbish and crap) It’s a short hop, skip and jump to the public subsidy of the Piss-Christ industry from there naturally. Then we get the hypocrisy of soft left racism and his preference for Australian crap over American crap. For any decent purveyor of crap and rubbish, you’d reckon crap is rubbish is crap, but not for this typical post modernist prevaricator. Some crap is more equal than others it seems. If you say so peterhead. You gotta love this phony badge of left liberal progressivism. It’s all about wearing the moral badge of concern for your fellow collectives, unless of course it means some personal self discipline or control, and then it’s Whaaaaaa… me!!!! You could imagine Beattie in the same breath turning on Maccas for promoting obesity. Now that’s a fallacy of composition he’d recognise only too well. Bah, phonies!
Right, and how does this relate in any way whatsoever to the subject of providing the Australian public with education around issues of sexual harrassment, gender-based violence, and the attitudes that underlie them in Australia?
I’ll have to take your word for it Zoe – I only watched a few episodes of the very first series because I oh so slightly knew one of the HMs.
I did admire her crowd-wrangling skills.
A silly comment I know, but everytime I see that word Endemol I can’t help thinking it’s a perfect name for a diarrhoea medicine.
Re Silkworm’s comment on John’s myspace site.
The Google cache version records the site’s Last Login as 4/30/2006 (i.e. after John was locked up in the house). Obviously, at least one person other than John has logon access.
Assuming that the “Gangbanging aint dead baby!” sentiments are made or least endorsed by John then, I agree that they seem in poor taste. But it’s important to note that “gangbanging” is *not* a synonym for gang-rape (or any other type of sexual assault).
John’s “Statusâ€? is recorded as “Swingerâ€?, and while he might just be taking the piss here (aren’t all swingers middle-aged-plus these days?), it does set his “gangbanging” reference in context.
Otherwise Sikworm, I’m puzzled why you didn’t also highlight John’s homophobia on his website. Maybe it’s just me, but I find his caption (to a random snapshot of some male cheesecake): “You’re a fag – Enragedâ€? more odious. “Gangbanging” can have a relatively innocent meaning, but “You’re a fag – Enragedâ€? is pure, simple hate-speech. Which doesn’t mean I think that John is evil or whatever (if nothing else, his in-house behaviour belies serious homophobia), but that some people need to get a grip, aka a sense of proportion. See also:
http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/07/ten-pulls-big-brother-after-mp.html
Paul, it’s not his caption – “Enraged” is band who uses that image and the tagline “You’re a fag” as their avatar in myspace; their pages is here.
And this is how they describe themselves: Oldschool Today, Kickbox tomorrow is fuckin back. Annoyed with life and not just the hardcore scene some dudes thought it would be pretty fuckin cool to form a band and play some hardcore punk without lyrics about high fives, equal rights and ex-girlfriends. Chopped out the gay octaves, positivity and dreaded tough guy mosh calls and what was left was a furious concoction known as ENRAGED. ENRAGED plays furious and fast hardcore which deals with all the subjects that piss them off such as crusty communist grind kids, feminists, fashion, oldschool hardcore kids, People who hang out at cherry, cockrock for example. Check back for mp3 additions which will hopefully be up shortly.
This is not said in defence of John, who I agree is homophobic.
Don’t mind me babbling on.
I thought the right took the view that it’s all market forces and that government has no place interfering to try to ensure that TV is quality?
Because if they’re saying interfere to lose the crap, I say great, and while we’re at it why stop at BB, which at least affords some useful insights into human behaviour. Let’s go after the total crap by limiting US content to a maximum of 30% of all free to air AND pay TV, spending big on Aunty and SBS, and providing a public interest bucket of cash to anyone who wants to sue today tonight.
Let’s go nuts, after all, we know best!
But no, whatever you do, don’t try and address the problem by acknowledging that there may be a gap in our education system…
Appollonia, trust me, as a fellow male who’s seen the statistics, you don’t want to really get into an argument about whether women perpetrate child abuse as much as males. It’s not even close to 50-50…
Here you go:
Sheesh, my “don’t mind” looked a lot better with a double post of my first comment above it!
In an amusing turn, A Current Affair tonight screened the offending footage, with aa action commentary to boot. Followed by moral outrage. Farce!!!
An absolute farce, and an inexcusable disgrace, since, unlike their targeted program, ACA goes out at prime time when families are, often unguardedly, watching, or allowing it to play in the background, and there was no warning about how explicit ACA was going to be in it’s televising of this crass event. Irresponsible, opportunist journalism at its worse!
For those that haven’t seen the footage of the incident. Watch and decide for yourself
http://www.viddy.id.au/stuff/bb6.au.day069.live.feed.incident-korntunes-cut.asx
It just occurred to me that one reason why it’s difficult for BB to spell out the nature of the incident (other than to say “they breached the rules”) is that it would be hard to explain in family viewing time.
On FaceLift’s point, I hope ACA is investigated by Coonan’s tame regulator, and similar criticism is made of it by the same pollies who’ve bagged BB.
I also think Catherine Lumby’s comment in Crikey today is worth bringing into the discussion:
A televison broadcast licence is a privilege not a right. We, yes, you and I, grant this privilege to a few companies and they make squillions and indulge in a spot of social engineering along the way. Network Ten seems to be hellbent on telling the next generation, via BB, that it’s OK to sexually assault your acquaintances, especially in the name of “entertainment”, and that acquaintances who object, or consider a complaint to the Police, are “wowsers” and exhibit a “victim mentality”. It’s time Network Ten were asked to demonstrate why their licence shouldnt be withdrawn forthwith. It’s time the responsible Minister (Senator Coonan) showed some leadership. And another thing, A/Prof Catherine Lumby had a really great opportunity to administer a bashing to Network Ten (via ABC Radio) this morning and didnt. Why not? Instead she chose to fire a feeble shot across the bows of conservative politicians who might call for Network Ten’s licence to be withdrawn. And lastly, what can we do about this mindless crap which Network Ten dishes out to create an audience for brokers like Harold Mitchell to sell to companies who wish to advertise their products and services? Well, we can let the companies know, via our own viral marketing (e.g. conversations in workplaces, pubs, parties, trains, buses, the internet) that the BB audience is a mix of sleazy old tossers and teenagers with limited discretionary income and it’s unlikely this heterogeneous group will buy their products AND that association with the BB show will likely damage the images of their brands. We can also choose not to buy their products – some of the sponsors of BB06 are, I believe, Procter & Gamble, Hutchison Telecoms, Reckitt Benckiser and Master Foods. So, for example, next time you crave a Mars Bar, buy a banana instead! And tell the check-out person why you’ve chosen the healthier alternative.
Because, and I’m addressing you, global capitalism, I want to pay $20/kilo for my snack instead of $1.50 a bar!
But the two people that sexually assaulted their acquaintance were punished within hours, being thrown out of the competition and thus losing their chance at a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The matter was referred to the police. How does that tell anybody that sexual assault is all right?
Careful Avocadia. You don’t want to say something defamatory, do you? Try looking at the link I posted and watch for yourself. I don’t see how any reasonable person after viewing this can say there was “sexual assault”.
What will ultimately kill this show is not some tut-tutting from Our Leaders. Nor will it be a sudden axe-blow – if this show was on Channel Nine then by now it may well have been, as it were, boned. What will kill it is thousands of anonymous people rolling their eyes at the very idea: “you don’t still watch that, do you?”. It was groundbreaking stuff six years ago, now it’s just lame.
All the pop-psychology and unscripted responses have lost their novelty. There is nothing else to prove, no reason for it to command your attention. The scope for untalented people to use it as their shot at celebrity has gone. I have no idea whether sexual assault actually occurred, but BB itself is well and truly buggered.
Those of us who’ve never cared for this show are no longer left out, we’re ahead of the curve.
I’m not sure you’re right there Andrew E. Big Brother still rates reasonably well (very well in the last couple of days not surprisingly – over 1.5 million viewers on Sunday night).
The show will probably continue for as long as it rates, and to some extent, the more older folk (like my age and above) complain about it, the longer it will retain appeal for younger people – although I don’t discount the wider commercial considerations that can come into play for the TV Network following major goverment disapproval.
However, if people who don’t and won’t watch it do still feel strongly enough about it’s existence, organising a consumer boycott of advertisiers is a valid, if somewhat blunt, approach.
Tut-tutting about a scandal is a time-honoured way for the media to cash on re-running more of the scandal under the guise of dispassionately ‘debating’ it, and the fact that A Current Affair can do it flagrantly (with footage) at 6.30pm does highlight the hypocrisy of it. However, at the same time it is a valid issue for debate, and it is impossible to untangle talking about it from (re)promoting it – no matter how obviously cynical the action sometimes is.
I think Catherine Lumby’s comments are close to the mark – even though she could be seen as in part defending her own involvement with the show. For all the understandable (and basically correct) comments about Big Brother being trash TV which exploits people and takes a lowest common denominator approach, it does still provides some sort of window (albeit a distorted one) into the attitudes, mindsets and behaviours of many young people. It also is a way for many younger people to talk about and work through issues of sex and sexuality (and maybe one or two other things too – I’m told there are actually things other than sex that young people think about it). There is much that I loathe about Big Brother and what it does and represents, so I dislike being able to be seen as defending it, but the world is not one dimensional – even John Howard has some good things about him after all.
An argument can be made that, deliberately or not, this incident will have triggered heaps of discussion amongst young people about what is right and wrong behaviour, and it is reasonable to assume that it will have led more of them to be clearer on what sort of behaviour is just not on. There’s been a lot from this incident that reinforces a message that this sort of sexual assault/behaviour is unacceptable, no matter how much fooling around and flirting there’s been or how much people have had to drink (although this hasn’t been an unequivocal message, not least some of Gretel Killeen’s comments).
It may be unfortunate that boundaries in sexual and gender interaction are less clear for younger people than they may have been two generations ago, but it is still the reality. This incident has provided a clear example of where one of those boundaries is.
It is plausible to suggest that there’s a few thousand teenage blokes who may have now got that message and who might not have otherwise – at least for some time yet. (although I suspect the more older people just use the incident to froth about how terrible it is that all these young people are talking about sex and sexual acts, the less likely it is that the basic message will get through that this specific behavour is never on in any circumstance where there is anything less than unequivocal consent.)
Thanks, Paul and Zoe, for pointing out the homophobia evident in John’s website. I hadn’t seen it, so that’s why I didn’t mention it. However, I could tell from his behaviour in the house that he was homophobic. Not just him, either. I think Jamie’s constant nominations of David and Rob were motivated by homophobia, and it probably extended to Ash and Dino as well.
Surely their homophobic and misogynistic tendencies would have been spotted in the vetting of candidates prior to the show. (Presumably they were unaware of John’s “gangbanging” comment on his website.) Or does BB choose bloky males for their potential for conflict (because conflict = $$$)? BB got away with it last year in their choice of Hotdogs and Dean, but maybe this year they decided to push the envelope just a little bit farther. If BB goes ahead next year – and I am conflicted over this – there will have to be a much more rigorous vetting of candidates for their antisocial attitudes.
I think Beazley’s, Fielding’s, Coonan’s and Howard’s opportunism over this issue is disgraceful. Fielding is also a wowser and an idiot. Both he and Coonan can’t make up their minds whether they oppose BB because of its nudity or it’s sexual harrassment. They may excite their religious base, but the rest of the population can see through their politically motivated comments.
Hmm, just saw Jamie doing nominations on the Uplate show, and Jamie was wearing a large Chi-Rho logo on his T-shirt. Christians love to advertise!
Andrew Bartlett: its ratings are on a longterm downward trend, notwithstanding stunts and spikes now and then. The best thing you can do is ignore it. You’ve agreed with my premise and proved my point, so it’s not clear why you disagree with my conclusion.
Gee Senator Bartlett, for someone who has been unfairly labelled by the media in the past, you sure seem happy to do the same to others. Even some of the papers are careful to say “alleged sexual assault” instead of “sexual assault”, but you don’t even offer these guys the same courtesy.
If you haven’t seen the video have a look at it, and see that the lines are far from clear in this case:
http://www.viddy.id.au/stuff/bb6.au.day069.live.feed.incident-korntunes-cut.asx
Hello there “Decide for yourseves” – you obviously desperately want some attention, and I’m feeling generous. However, I’m not about to click on a link from an unknown source, so until someone puts it on a site I trust, we’ll leave that. But you tell me why you’re so sure? Does Camilla not express discomfort/ask for the intimate contact to stop?
Women have been socially conditioned to blame themselves for somehow inviting unwanted sexual contact. Camilla may well be doing that now, berating herself for willingly hopping into that bed for a cuddle. But noone has the right to press unwelcome sexual contact on another no matter what they’re wearing, what they’ve said earlier in the day, or even if everything was all AOK a minute ago.
There’s a description of the video at Wild Young Under Whimsy, tigtog, for those who have no interest/access/desire to go wandering around the dark corners of the interwebs. I haven’t seen it myself (as I explain at Mel’s, I don’t think work would appreciate it and I have dial up at home).
On another point, geez I’m curious about people like “Decide for yourselves” who’ve turned up to helpfully provide the link. I see it’s been pulled from YouTube for a Terms of Use violation, and the link given leads somewhere else. I’m curious too that the comments made by the new commentor are limited to providing that link and chastising someone for not qualifying the term sexual assault.
I’m nosier than most, but I’d be sniffing around that IP address.
The two of you really shouldn’t feed the troll.
The show has been a catalyst for ideological convergence. It has brought out the scolds from left (gender-based violence [sight unseen]!) and right (ban it!). Off you go, scolds. Enjoy yourselves.
Thanks for the link, Zoe. Certainly I can see lots of us reading that transcript and coming to very different conclusions about what was in each person’s mind.
The principle stands:
Some of the commenters over at ausculture in that thread make me want to bleach my eyeballs.
Gilbert, how often does this have to be spelt out to people like you?
There is a difference between sex between consenting adults, which is about things like fun and pleasure and attachment, and forceful sex play by multiple stupid randy boychicks, which is about things like power, contempt and violence.
One is okay, and the other one isn’t.
Sorry the technology doesn’t let me do this in primary colours, if that would help.
PC – I’ve seen the footage. It was not sexual assault. That is all.
Whether it was or wasn’t in a legal sense is surely immaterial except insofar as it might relate to legal culpability. The point is that it was disgraceful behaviour which shouldn’t be condoned and not “a harmless bit of fun” as the BB spin machine is now claiming.
Oh, whatever. If you looked at the footage you would have seen it for what it was. Juvenile, disgraceful, etc, sure. Gender-based violence, as one of your scolding commentators has it? I don’t think so.
You might like to read Mel’s post (which Zoe linked to), Gilbert:
http://wildyoungunderwhimsy.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_wildyoungunderwhimsy_archive.html#115191154220383729
Perhaps you should actually read my comment Dilbert. I said that this incident could have been used as an opportunity for the government to highlight its campaign on the issue of gender-based violence in Australia, rather than seeking to censor television content. This is a very different statement to making a claim that what actually took place constituted GBV. I have actually tried to steer clear of saying anything specific about the incident. I have been far more interested in the content and tone of the discussion that the incident has generated.
I actually posted a link to the footage yesterday, Mark. Better than a subjectively edited transcript, but it has now been taken down from the SMH site. This was in response to Cristy’s kneejerk response that this incident should be used as the basis for a campaign against gender-based violence.
I think Cristy’s response was considered and I think it constitutes sexual harrassment, Gilbert.
Actually Cristy I have changed my mind
perhaps we should have a “gender based violence” course
can we start with this BBC panorama programe from 1997?
http://www.menweb.org/panofull.htm
“Approximately one in every hundred girls in the population and one in every hundred boys in the population are sexually abused in their childhood by a woman. And that’s a vast number of victims that we are avoiding if we are not looking at the issue of women as sexual abusers.
Victims trapped in the custody of their mothers as children, often only speak out after they’ve escaped. When they do, much of their testimony shatters the myth that women only sexually abuse if coerced by men. “
Apollo, I hope that your selective research into the issue of child abuse makes you feel happy.
I have no intention of arguing with someone with such a clear agenda as to what the real statistics say about prevalence and which gender is more likely to commit the abuse.
I am glad that you would support greater education about issues of gender-based violence. If the information provided was balance and statistically valid then I am sure that the issue of violence by and against both genders would be discussed. The reduction of all forms of violence and abuse through greater education could only be a good thing.
Apollo, you’re waving your proberbial in the wind. No one here, AFAICT, condones or even makes the slightest “category” differentiation for sexual assault by women. Anomalies certainly do exist, but they’re arguably more to do with age- than gender-preferment; see http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/05/nabs-unauthorised-traders-spot.html
Re the guy who keeps saying “See the actual footage here!” – he sounds, rightly or wrongly, like a p*rn-merchant. I still can’t get over the fact that the footage was broadcast on Channel Nine at 6.30 last night, yet the “yoof” media outlets, like Ten and YouTube, have either pulled it or refuse to run it. Reminds me of the “Rabelai” case in the 90s, when several students nearly went to jail for pubslishing something that anyone else was seemingly free to do so, *providing*, of course that that “anyone else” was not youth/student media.
People who accuse me of being a “troll”, or a “p*rn merchant”, “needing attention” – I would suggest that you are projecting your feelings of inferiority on to me.
I posted the link for one reason only. I am getting a bit sick and tired of “high and mighty” people ready to judge an incident based on 10th hand reports. Yeah, I know small people feel better about themselves when putting others down – and what better tartget than Ashley and John from BB? However, in the long term you might do your self-esteem a bigger service by being an ethical and decent person.
I encourage those that have not seen the video to look at it and then judge. If you don’t “like” my link, I believe there are others that still work.
I have shown this video to a friend of mine who is a criminal lawyer and he said there is zero chance what they did was sexual assault.
Which isn’t to deny that there are some (though a minority) who having seen the video, might believe otherwise. But at least such opinions are grounded in reality, not on the desire to knock others down.
I’ll repeat what I said before in response to your comment:
“Look at yourseves” – quite a lot of people here have already explained to you that they have seen the footage and that they still believe that what occurred was a bad thing. No probably not illegal – but nonetheless, not even remotely excusable.
Your eagerness to have everyone here validate and absolve the two men concerned is very disturbing.
If it’s not illegal, and some believe it is “disgraceful” – all I can say is that disgracefulness is in the eye of the behaviour.
For instance, some might think that your accusation that my behaviour is “disturbing” (because I am defending the two men) is intolerant and disgraceful.
So in your morally relativistic world, whether or not one man holding down a woman while another waves his penis in her face is ok in the eye of some beholders? If they say “it was only a bit of fun” or like the commenters on the Ausculture thread “she’s a slut and was asking for it”?
OK Mark, since your comment wasn’t a personal attack towards me, I’ll address it.
She “wasn’t a slut and asking for it”. As a general point, I hate the term slut, girls are free to exercise their sexuality if they wish. But that is not the point I was making.
As the video shows, she knew what they were going to do before she got into bed with them. She then got into bed with them. There is a strong arguable case that on these facts there was consent. Especially when looked together with the fact that she was laughing during the whole incident. And if you’ll look carefully, she did mast*rb*te John (one of the 2 guys) right after the incident.
Which isn’t to say that the case for “there was consent” is 100% unequivocal, but there still is one.
I still think that’s a very legalistic way of looking at it. It has to be examined within its specific context (the degradation Camilla had already copped) and its broader context (does her “consent” validate the behaviour morally?)…
She pointedly asked them whether they were going to “turkey slap*” her: they said no, they were not going to “turkey slap*” her.
Then they did it anyway.
The whole consent thing seems pretty fucking clear to me.
*and Lord how I wish that I had never had a reason to learn this term. I liked my ignorance, actually.
Lets look at the full story Anna. One of them said “no” when she asked if they were going to turkey slap her. She responded with the comment “you liar” (showing she knew they were joking when they said no). She then proceeded to get into bed with them.
Not to mention right after what she did to John’s member….
I agree that it’s pretty clear, but not in the same way you do.
Who says it’s degrading Mark? And even if it is, surely if people wish to consentually engage in such beahviour who are others to judge?
There are other more complex issues. Such as that friends, especially young ones, often use degradation as a way of bonding (eg drunk guy breaking wind in a friend’s face, as immature as that sounds).
I hardly think that it is justified to tar and feather these two young men and ruin their future given the facts of the incident.
Are you interested at all in Camilla’s future?
of course I am interested in Cam’s future. But I do not believe her future is in danger.
The two boys: in their early 20’s, without many lifecoping skills at that age, suddently being attacked by a large proportion of the country by being labelled as sexual perverts.
Well, any reasonably prudent young man in any context might avoid that by keeping his dick in his pants. It’s not too much of an ask, really.
I give you exhibit a: it’s all fun and games! No-one got hurt! It’s totally cool for guys to humiliate a girl by holding her down and giving her a turkey-slap! And if they are, like, exposed as doing so on TV then it’s totally not their own fault! Don’t judge them!
Thanks, ‘decide for yourseves’, I had already seen the footage. I was originally going to write ‘alleged’ sexual assault, but I bracketed ‘assault’ and ‘behaviour’ with the intent of leaving it an open question (and I was writing at 1.30 in the morning, not that that excuse holds up much in my position).
As a person who has been repeatedly labelled by many as being guilty of assault when I know very well that I wasn’t, I am sensitive to laying a label/libel onto someone which could well be stuck with them for the rest of their lives. I note these guys are already being portrayed in some mainstream media alongside comment about the men who were involved in the saga of the alleged drugging, raping and manslaughter of Diane Brimble on the P&O Cruise, which is potentially defamatory and certainly unfairly harmful to the blokes that were kicked out of Big Brother, whatever one may think of their sin(s). It also is unhelpful to an informed public debate, as it connects separate things in a totally disproportionate way.
This has to be balanced by the fact that sexual assault should not be dismissed or underplayed on the grounds of ‘horseplay’, ‘just having fun’, etc, and in my view what occurred clearly crossed the line, even though as you say it is plausible to speculate (although not definitively conclude) that there was some degree of consent.
There was (and probably still is) the opportunity for the incident and the discussion around it to be used for wider benefit, such as Cristy suggests, in campaigns or debates about gender based violence and the seriously unacceptable nature of sexual assault. As I wrote earlier, I hope that there are at least some teenage blokes around who now have a better understanding that this sort of conduct is simply not on, no matter how much the surrounding social environment might seem to be steering things in that direction.
The problem is the words ‘sexual assault’ are both a legal term and a conversational label. In a purely legal sense, it seems improbable that this act would pass the test of sexual assault (which I assume is why the police decided not to proceed – it is not just up to whether or not a victim wants to press charges). At the same time, in a literal or technical sense, it is perfectly arguable that sexual assault did occur, as it also is in the more general conversational sense of the term. The woman who was subjected to the behaviour is the only one who can really judge all this, but unfortunately in such a public and controversial situation (not to mention ideological), people understandably wonder how objective her public statements about it can really be.
However, being seen in a conversational sense as having engaged in a sexual assault is on a very different scale to perpetrating sexual assault in a legal sense – the term is the same but the severity is not. I have no idea how this problem can be avoided – it is a limitation of our language and culture that cannot easily be circumvented.
Terminology aside – it was a very serious incident and it was right that those responsible were expelled forthwith. This is what should have happened last year when a similar (and even worse) incident happened, and presumably the involvement of people like Catherine Lumby is responsible for this improvement. This prompt action sent a good message, which was rather badly undermined by Gretel Killeen talking about it being a “harmless prank�, etc. The genuineness of the wider political and media outrage about the incident was also called into question by the shameless way other television stations were happy to run details of the story and the footage in children’s viewing time at 6.30pm without much criticism appearing at all.
Kate: the facts as presented by you paint a very damning picture. Unfortunatley, you have left out some very important and relevant details that have already been described in my earlier posts.
Mark: I’m still unclear as to what you are accusing them of doing wrong – not “keeping it in their pants” is a pretty vague allegation.
Senator Bartlett: Thank you for your comments. I am personally not familiar with the term “sexual assault” being used to reflect a legal but immoral act which is similar but milder than illegal sexual assault. However, this might be due to ignorance on my part. I would suggest that if this is what you meant then it would have been better had you explictly said so. I do not mean this in a critical of mocking manner towards you, we all at one time or another do not effectively communicate what we wish to.
Regarding last year’s incident – perhaps you mean incidents. I can think of at least one which was way worse than anything that happened this year.
According to the Australian, Catharine Lumby says the men crossed the line of good taste. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19664981-1702,00.html That’s rather worrying, if she really did say it (not that the Aus can always be trusted.) I mean, sexual harrassment is usually seen as somewhat more of an infringement than simply an offence against good taste, one would hope.
I’m not very happy about this paragraph either (from the Crikey piece Mark quoted earlier:)
We’ve seen the Big Brother audience ‘contemplating’ the issue — the bb forums were shut down, so they dispersed to blogs like this one and to Ausculture — and they have indeed been debating whether Camilla consented to being restrained and having a dick rubbed in her face. Why is that even a question? Leaving people to ‘debate’ basic questions of respect and decent behaviour isn’t really good enough, especially in the environment of majority rule and popularity contests which Big Brother has helped to create.
As this thread demonstrates, it’s even more of a problem to attempt ‘debate’ over the ethics of an event the tv station has done their best to ensure most people have only heard about. The transcripts going around are not a good substitute – word choice makes a difference.
Those are very good points, Laura. In fact the whole public discussion has been incredibly confused (last week Barnaby was complaining about “mixed showering” and the pollies/puritans don’t seem at all concerned about the actual harm potentially done by the incident – just ranting about “standards” etc) as Andrew points out. About the only decent discussion has been on blogs like this one, Sarsapirilla, Galaxy, Moment to Moment, PC, etc.
Laura – I cannot understand why you think the issue of consent is irrelevant. IMHO, consent is central to the issue being discussed. I think most people would agree that in a decent society, consenting adults are for the most part free to do as they wish between each other.
Which is a different issue as to whether there was consent on the facts here.
The point I am making in this post is that I do not agree with you that there is something inherently wrong in challenging the argument that these two men are morally/legally guilty. The case should be discussed on its merits, not given a holy “they are guilty, the case against them is without reproach” approach.
“Look at yourseves”, the possibility of informed consent within the BB house situation is deeply compromised by the game situation and by the legal position the housemates are in w/r/t the production company. In other words, all the contestants are under intense and abnormal pressure, and have signed waivers, and in those circumstances, it seems doubtful whether they can be said to be freely consenting to anything that’s done to them.
You are wrong about consent between adults trumping every other consideration. Murder / suicide pacts are not legal, nor is assisted suicide, nor are certain contract surrogacy or organ & tissue donation arrangements – extreme examples, but there are plenty of others, much weirder. Tattooing is illegal in some states of the USA, for eg.
Aside from the question of whether Camilla volunteered herself (a question which won’t be answered by us arguing over it, so this vaunted ‘debate’ Lumby thinks we will benefit from engaging in is pointless) is the question of whether it’s a good thing for us to be arguing over whether sexualised gestures of contempt are ok in some circumstances. We might do better to just get real and backtrack to the point where we can see what those gestures actually mean and represent.
That is indeed the epitome of the issue.
Laura – I agree that consent does not make every situation legal. Which is why I carefully chose my words – I said that “for the most part” consenting adults may do as they wish.
Having said that, I hardly think that a “turkey slap” falls into one of these situations that is “unconsentable”.
At the risk of getting grotesque, there are acts that are much humiliating and frankly just plain disgusting that are legal when consented to. Golden shower is an example that comes to mind. What about people who are into full on S & M? The whole point of such acts is for one party to humiliate another. If we are to regard turkey slapping wrong whether consented to or not, surely we must also include a whole range of infinitely more perverted and humiliating acts under this “wrong” umbrella.
Sexualised gestures of contempt are all around us. Labelling them as immoral or making them illegal will not address the underlying personality problems that manifest themselves as sadistic and/or masochistic traits.
I’ve got another post up about the “debate” Lumby called for:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/04/discuss-not-dismiss/
You’re missing the point, Look at yourseves.
“Golden showers” etc are what two people choose to do as part of a sexual relationship. “Turkey slapping” is what Ash and John chose to do to someone they showed every signs of having contempt for.
Mark – I disagree with your last point. Golden showers can be done in a consenting manner by people who have met 10 minutes ago – not necessarily people who are in a relationship. They can be done in a consenting manner by two people where there is very much a “master/slave” relationship (metaphorically, not literally speaking). In other words, they can be done where one person has contempt for the other. As long as both consent.
I don’t think I am missing the point. I was addressing the issue that consent is not relevant here. In point of fact, it is highly relevant.
A much better analogy is this episode occurring at a party where the 2 men know the woman.
It’s not akin to either an ongoing sexual relationship, or to people picking each other up for sex or sex play of whatever nature.
It wasn’t my scene but I but got understand the dynamics of such relationships when I knew people who were really into the scene many moons ago who kindly took time to explain (and show) me a few things. Dom/sub relationships are not based on contempt. The dynamics are for more complex than that and usually involve trust and respect. Safe, sane and consensual was the motto.
So again you continue to miss the point.
I think I understand where you’re coming from. You are saying that the relationship did not have a “sexual flavour” to it before hand, whether long or short term. Hence the party analogy.
Personally I think this is a red herring. Which isn’t to say that the prexisting relationship is irrelevant. Just that I don’t think that the fact that the relationship did not have an pre-agreed sexual flavour changes anything here.
The analogy with guys meeting girls at a party and then taking advantage to it brings to mind a “date rape” scenario. Everyone agrees that date rape is very wrong. But that is not by a long shot what happened here.
There have been a number of blog posts to which I’ve linked in my new post which have tried to understand both the context and the way Camilla may have felt. You don’t seem to have done that. That’s crucial. This persistent focus on “consent” misses the point that the behaviour is not sexual in a relational sense but intended to humiliate or degrade.
Look at yourseves, you’re speaking of ‘consent’ as if it were a kind of bargain – a deal is a deal, right? It’s like you really think Camilla might actually and knowingly have asked to be treated with disrespect, by people who consistently have tried to get rid of her. Or is it like you think she made her bed and must be made to lie in it?
I’m really beginning to wonder what your stake is in all of this. Many of the other people commenting here are known to each other – some of us have known one another for years – and this is the first we’ve seen of you (and yes, I have had a look at your IP address.) It seems to me it’s time you told us a little about what brings you here, and why you’re so involved with this issue. No need to identify yourself – just satisfy my reasonable curiosity.
Laura – I have no hidden agendas. I have no “stake” in this. If I did, do you really think that I would be wasting my time arguing this point here? No disrespect intended, I’m just an insignificant soul myself.
As for people “wanting to be treated with disrespect” – see my earlier comments. I can only start to simplify a very complex topic here. People might consent to others’ humiliating behaviour for a whole variety of reasons – to fill masochistic urges, to fit in, to get others approval, because they genuinely want the other party to enjoy themself, etc etc etc.
As I said earlier, in a (relatively) free society we don’t try to control behaviour done by consenting adults, even if we don’t like the motive behind their consent. Of course, as you pointed out even consent has its limits, but a turkey slap is way on the consentable side of the fence.
That’s overstating in a situation with no clear boundaries or safe-words.
Shaun:
Oddly enough, the existence of a relationship which might (though I’m not totally convinced, despite your words of hearsay) not usually be based on humiliation doesn’t change the fact that there are many many types of relationship based on humiliation.
So to stop being side-tracked by red herrings, let me substitute where I referred to master/slave relationships to S & M relationships. Surely they are based on humiliation to a large extent.
If you say no they aren’t, that is fine, I’m sure I can think of many relationships that are.
It is you that is fighting the losing battle and doesn’t “get it”. Some people here are saying that turkey slaps on BB cannot be consented to, while ignoring the fact that squillions of consentual personal relationships do have a large element of humiliation in them. In many of them humiliation is the central theme and is the basis of the relationship. Refer to my S & M example.
This really is a waste of time.
S & M is often symbolic humiliation, as Shaun says. And within a relationship or a situation where both individuals are looking for sex or sex play.
Camilla doesn’t have a “relationship” in the same sense with Ashley and John.
That’s the key difference. You obviously don’t get it, but it’s a waste of time stating it over and over.
You’re right Mark, it is a waste of time. But it is not me who doesn’t get it. Your arbitrary distinctions between symbolic v real humiliation, and humiliation for people who met for a one nighter v those that met in a party seem particularly arbitrary to me.
Unless you have new arguments or more useful analogies we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I cannot believe people are talking about this !! she didn’t have a problem with it, why should you – has anyone seen the footage ? I have, and from what I could tell, the ‘victim’ laughed it off
get a frikken life
We stopped talking about it 26 days ago, Juanita. What’s your excuse?
I didn’t think I needed an excuse ?
:p
J, too right, no-one needs an excuse for a bit of stirring!
Still, we clearly have got on with life in the meantime.