Hi, HD.

---> "supposedly
Well, that's the key word now, isn't it..."

I thought so. Like I said, I think there's just as much a tendency toward myth-making and stereotyping among the homosexual community as the xyz-sexual community. For instance, the infamous "gaydar"...Gimme a break, guys! I did NOT say I believed it for myself. I simply relayed part of my experience for making my (since deleted) joke.

This is a PG-13 forum. Yes, we're dealing with a sensitive topic here, and it's tough to stay on the appropriate side of the line, but your joke went too far.

I agree that there are numerous reasons to find the airing of this bit of tape as despicable.

*looks around and checks that I am in bashers*

But from reading the Live Feeds I do feel that this was the closest they could come to showing some of these hamsters in any sort of positive light.

I think they do want people to actually like some of these idjits so they gotta show crap like this because it makes them look much better than all the other film they shot.

If they didn't show this they would have had to show footage that would have caused America to mob the house and rip the hamsters limb from limb. While that could make for good TV, it would only last a short while and what would they fill up the rest of the season with?

Although I find I have a morbid fascination to find out just how much farther they can decend.

Where is Mr Potter when you need him?

LAST EDITED ON 08-15-05 AT 11:29 AM (EST)

All good points. One of the things that reveals itself with each reality show (group type) is that real human nature isn't as good, grand, as close to ideal as we hope. It says something about the optimistic nature of all of us that we hope for better, and that when what it really is is revealed, how disappointed we are.

For what you are seeing is us, is what we as a species are capable of, and maybe what we as a group average out to be. I agree, this is kinda discouraging.

Commenting on CBS editing, OK, as HD infers, they go for the bucks, ad-sales, and show the tittilating stuff, can't really fault them for following thru on the mission of the show, attracting viewers. As such, they can't set the standards, they can only respond to them. And they should be expected to edit the show so as to exagerate (among other things) suspense, sexual tension, interactive tensions, etc., stuff that sells TV shows, and provide on occasion artifical 'Surprises'.

AS far as the comment "The editors had days of footage from dozens of cameras to work with --- but they couldn't find anything better to broadcast than a segment in which Howie looks over the door of the shower stall" , well lets be honest , I very much doubt whether there WAS any thing more provocative (attested to by His. Det. and (I assume) everyone else's reaction). I imagine that that scene made the producers very happy, and that there was no chance that they would use the footage from any of the other cameras at that (or any other) time in preference to that footage.

It also shows us (IMO) how artificial PC is, and how it confuses people. You have your innate instincts on the one hand (curiousity to look) and PC which puts some into a tail spin "should I or shouldn't I", "what reasons can I give to look", "is someone looking at me, what will they think".

However I don't think they are much affected by what the TV audience might think, but by what the others in the group will think. I seems that in these group reality shows that the everpresent cameras become part of the background and that they put aside mentally (at least partially) the fact that America is watching. I think that they have to, otherwise, they would be paralyzed.

Howies reaction seemed to be (although who knows what was really going on in his pinhead) the most honest, that is if he was just curious and decided to look. As we mature, we gain (to differing degrees) impulse control and self awareness, and lose the direct curious honesty that a child exhibits.

We are all just trained monkeys.

How can one watch the show, watch these antics, and think that we aren't ape cousins?

After all, it is quite obvious by looking at Beau that he is a black man. Can't we all assume that his penis will generally match his skin tone?

(insert Michael Jackson joke here)

I'm with you HD, that's the most compelling non-game footage they could compile for a 5-minute segment? To call it sophomoric doesn't do justice. It was just plain crass. You know what's worse? My 8-year-old daughter was in the room while I was watching it. Now I have to have a 30-minute conversation about why what they did was wrong. At this point in time, she has a better concept of what was wrong about it than the Hamsters do.

I totally agree that April's rationalization was completely off-base. It's not wrong to peek at Beau because he's a man and you're married, it's wrong because it's an invasion of someone's privacy. Can you imagine the outrage if the tables were turned, it was Ivette in the shower, and all the men had a look-see because "it's OK, she's a lesbian and not interested in men"? I had to explain to my daughter that if her mom did the same thing I wouldn't be upset with her because she saw another man naked, but rather because she violated someone's privacy. Instead of April saying "I can't because I'm married", she should've said "I won't because I have more class than that".

Now we can debate how much privacy someone is entitled to in a common area shower in a house with more cameras than your average Super Bowl, but the concept still holds. You just don't go looking at someone in the shower unsolicited like that. And without sounding too Moral Majority, it's really trashy of SeeBS to be airing that in prime time, let alone the 8:00 hour. Errant boobage is one thing, violating someone's privacy and perpetuating stereotypes is quite another.

Fester

Can you imagine the outrage if the tables were turned, it was Ivette in the shower, and all the men had a look-see because "it's OK, she's a lesbian and not interested in men"?

I just did. NOW would have called the press conference within thirty minutes. Tops.

Instead of April saying "I can't because I'm married", she should've said "I won't because I have more class than that".

Ummm... no. No chance.

Hi, Fester. You asked, "Can you imagine the outrage if the tables were turned, it was Ivette in the shower, and all the men had a look-see because "it's OK, she's a lesbian and not interested in men"?" My answer is YES...and...the outrage in that hypothetical scenario would NOT rationally translate to outrage over the Beau scenes.

Men and women's sexualities are fundamentally different no matter what the man or woman's sexual orientation. No matter what the social programming, it's no match to defeat the prototypical biological determinants and propensities of male and female sexual behaviors. Men are naturally more aggressive. Men typically have the brute strength women do not have. It's not as inherently or primally-hardwired threatening (for women or for society) for women to gawk at men. This is why there's such a security budget differential in the relatively few "strip" bars for women (featuring men--usually gay guys--where the Wang Chung action is outlawed anyway) compared to the pulsing sex industry for men to gawk at women (where women in some places can, by law, strut around totally nude).

Expecting APEril to have more class than she does would be unreasonable for me. I think "because I'm married" is a very good reason to forego many activities. That's part of being married--married people who honor their marriages do and don't do lots of things simply because they're married. No shocker to find out that Aperil would disrespect the spirit of her marriage on national TV...at least not to me.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the strip club industry, but it's not necessarily where you would think. The short version is that many women will defend their right to watch men while at the same time condemming any man who would watch a woman. For demonstrations, wait for any talk show that gets male and female strippers on the same stage in front of a female audience. The males will be cheered and the females will be called every name in the book.

And a man working in a strip club for women is at risk. The odds are more in his favor, yes, something is less likely to happen -- but things do happen. Ugly things. 'Male rape victim' is nowhere close to an oxymoron, and anyone can be immobilized, brute strength or not.

Hi, Estee. I think it's perverted for women AND men to want to be watched by women OR men. I think it's a perversion of our natural instincts, because we have been evolutionary wired as a species to associate copulating with vulnerability. Therefore, the entire sex industry feeds on BOTH women's and men's predatory instincts.

When I think a behavior falls under the domain of natural human behavior, I'm not apt to call the behavior hypocritical. For similar animalistic reasons (and we are a species of animal) cited above, I understand why women would censure women on sexual display and not men. It's actually a form of women contributing to the survival of other women, who are more vulnerable when on sexual display. This is NOT an argument that "because it's natural, it must be good." I merely think that some things natural are inescapable, which makes them futile to try to override (and where overriding such naturalness would prove to be a longterm threat to society).

I know that females rape males, but it usually is NOT via violence or manipulative immobilization of the male victim--as male-on-female and male-on-male rape is. The majority of the instances of females raping males is (sick but the stats say it) not rape via violating an orifice. It's female "caretakers" molesting male children--in many, many cultures worldwide. Sadly, those same female "caretakers" do the same thing to female children as well. As far as older male victims of female rape, that occurs almost exclusively in the form of an older female SEDUCING and not forcing a younger male. Of course, probably most instances of adults raping or violating children involves some form of seduction, at least initially. However, males routinely and overwhelmingly resort to perpetrating sexual violence much more so than do females.

LAST EDITED ON 08-15-05 AT 04:41 PM (EST)

The last word I'll give on this is that 'usually not' does not equal 'never' -- and the numbers on 'usually not' are going up. Beyond that, I'm just going to end this one right here, because it's more suited for OT to start with and we're also treading into waters where my natural first instinct is to start dunking people.

LAST EDITED ON 08-15-05 AT 03:30 PM (EST)

I'm not saying that my hypothetical involving Ivette and Saturday's scene involving Beau would be equivalent (although I certainly think they're closer than you do), I'm just offering perspective. It's a violation of privacy that is at issue here, not threatening behavior. I don't think the reaction in the hypothetical would've centered on male aggressiveness toward women. I think it would've centered on male objectification of women. How is what happened to Beau any different?

I think "because I'm married" is a very good reason to forego many activities. That's part of being married--married people who honor their marriages do and don't do lots of things simply because they're married.

If April and her husband have rules in place about this sort of thing, that's between them, however that's not what primarily makes it wrong. It's the equivalent of saying "I shouldn't steal that car because my husband will get pissed". Maybe he would get pissed, but the reason it's wrong is because we, as a society, have a code of ethics (and laws) that we adhere to, and part of that code is you don't steal things from other people. Similarly, you don't go peeping into the shower because of Beau's right to privacy, not because of any sense of loyalty to a spouse. It's an irrelevant argument. April's husband's opinion in this matter doesn't really matter.

And Estee? I should've been clearer. I don't mean to say that I expected April to act with class. That would be like expecting Ivette to use an indoor voice...ever. I should've said that a person in April's position should have refrained because they have more class than that.

Fester

I don't think the reaction in the hypothetical would've centered on male aggressiveness toward women. I think it would've centered on male objectification of women.

Part of what I was going for above. A lot of women who scream about being objectified love to objectify men. It's equally wrong on both sides, but try telling them that.

And Estee? I should've been clearer. I don't mean to say that I expected April to act with class. That would be like expecting Ivette to use an indoor voice...ever. I should've said that a person in April's position should have refrained because they have more class than that.

S'okay and understood. I'm not going to ask Maggie to call hypocrisy on herself, either. ;>

>LAST EDITED ON 08-15-05
>AT 03:30 PM (EST)
>
>I'm not saying that my hypothetical
>involving Ivette and Saturday's scene
>involving Beau would be equivalent
>(although I certainly think they're
>closer than you do), I'm
>just offering perspective. It's
>a violation of privacy that
>is at issue here, not
>threatening behavior. I don't
>think the reaction in the
>hypothetical would've centered on male
>aggressiveness toward women. I
>think it would've centered on
>male objectification of women.
>How is what happened to
>Beau any different?
>
>I think "because I'm married" is
>a very good reason to
>forego many activities. That's part
>of being married--married people who
>honor their marriages do and
>don't do lots of things
>simply because they're married.
>
>If April and her husband have
>rules in place about this
>sort of thing, that's between
>them, however that's not what
>primarily makes it wrong.
>It's the equivalent of saying
>"I shouldn't steal that car
>because my husband will get
>pissed". Maybe he would
>get pissed, but the reason
>it's wrong is because we,
>as a society, have a
>code of ethics (and laws)
>that we adhere to, and
>part of that code is
>you don't steal things from
>other people. Similarly, you
>don't go peeping into the
>shower because of Beau's right
>to privacy, not because of
>any sense of loyalty to
>a spouse. It's an
>irrelevant argument. April's husband's
>opinion in this matter doesn't
>really matter.
>
>And Estee? I should've been
>clearer. I don't mean
>to say that I expected
>April to act with class.
> That would be like
>expecting Ivette to use an
>indoor voice...ever. I should've
>said that a person in
>April's position should have refrained
>because they have more class
>than that.
>
> Fester

OK, the whole BB6 game is exactly about violating rights to privacy! Nobody's "right to privacy" is a legitimate gripe in this game, IMO.

I think the issue is that Beau, as the only (disclosed, anyway) gay guy in the house was set up as "fair game" for a devious form of hetero-hazing by the rest of the household. Supposedly Hetero-Howie saw Beau as "infringable" because of Beau's sexual status. That's what I think it boils down to. I see it in subtler forms too many times IRL.

I think that laws are based upon human feelings, so I tend to go with the "human touch" aspect of right and wrong instead of directly to the "letter of the law." Laws are made against (usually against) certain things because it makes individual human beings hurt or it deprives them of their potential to be a productive contributor to society. When I said "because I'm married" is a good reason, it's because I was referring to the SPIRIT of marriage and not the legalistic aspects of being married to somebody.

HD, I read this thesis, and you have some good points about the dog wagging the tail or the, errr... chocolate peepee wagging the Brother. But as far as BB encouraging HG's "peeping Tom" behavior, the whole premise of the show is to encourage the viewing public toward PT behavior.

Maybe I'm not cyncial enough about this. Though I do agree that Howie's sexuality is infantile, I think it's natural curiosity to want to check out people's parts of different skin tones. My multi-colored friends and I have, in the past, spent time gooing over how different our gums look, the palms of our hands and soles of our feet look, how our elbow skin looks, etc. I don't think recognizing and being curious about differences qualifies as being anti-vanilla or anti-chocolate or anti-whatever. Of course, I went through this curiosity and discovery phase when I was a kid. Maybe it says something about Howie's lack of metropolitan social experiences that he's curious at his late age.

BB6 is advertised as sleaze. Have you seen the ads that say, "Sex, Lies...(and whatever else that dumb ad says that hardly kept my attention long enough to realize it was promoting BB6)"?

It's the oldest trick of prehistoric days and Madison Avenue that "sex sells." It's not exclusive to American appetites. I wouldn't get too down on American culture in general because of a low-budget TV show like BB6.

My concern was not with the houseguests' curiosity but rather with the manner in which they went about satisfying that curiosity and the language, rationalizations, and double standards used in doing so.

courtesy of Seana and Syren - thanks gals!