Sex in the UK Big Brother House

I'M BEING SARCASTIC

Jade: You mean Cambridge isn't in London?
Spencer: No, it's in Cambridgeshire...
Jade: Oh, I found out that Birmingham wasn't in London, but I really thought Cambridge was!
Spencer: It's part of East Anglia.
Jade: East Angular?! I thought that was abroad, like, aeroplane stuff! Ooh, do I seem really thick now?
Spencer: With what you just said, you ARE thick, yeah.

Sobering up before going to bed last thing last night I found the pillow-fight on e4 very entertaining. I've still to see the Jade geography lesson and might have to actually stay in to watch the eviction etc and go out after

Adele must go. Conniving bint.

In the UK, the lust for everyone's 15 minutes of fame really has reached more frightening levels than ever before, with "docusoaps" and "reality gameshows" dominating the schedules. But one line remains uncrossed: no one is yet prepared to have sex with the nation watching. And their mothers watching. And their baby sisters watching. Even those "Ibiza Uncovered" and "Club Reps" programmes are confined to the world of late night "post-pub" viewing. BB, however is covered by all the newspapers, plus Childrens BBC and Newsround, and has repeats on Sunday afternoons as well.

The fact that sex has occurred on other continental versions of the show and not in the UK just serves to confirm the differences between Us and Them Abroad. It's all true what they say. The thing I most remember from my stay in Denmark is that on the hotel room's TV, the porn channels were free. And hard to avoid.

This is surely a big exclusion clause.

Also, in Portugal - TV company got in trouble for showing one of the women using a vibrator in the shower during the daytime live coverage.

And now it's official, I've watched way too much Big Brother.

You mean THIS DOESN'T WORK?

He's the most dull person ever. People say PJ is dull but at least he just says nothing. Lee just makes vaguely shit chat up lines in the direction of the posh one and the Adele. Adele is also worthy of hatred cos she wears her thong round her fucking ribs. What a ho'.

As Graham Norton said - she wasn't hunting for TRUFFLES!

You know when you start College for example and you don't want to snog too many people in your class because you'll ruin your chances of snogging someone you really like who is actually nice? (it could be just me)

Anyway I reckon PJ has done that with the whole country.

Do you believe in this ladder effect? I reckon in a given group of people like a class or something if one guy snogs the girl who's considered the prettiest first, then his chances with the rest are improved. It's got to be something to do with people seeing certain people as above them and others as below in terms of attractiveness.

I'm not sure if it works with guys.

What do you reckon?

The real point (ok one of the points) is that we HAVE all been in these situations but NOT in front of and judged by squillions. I am officially extending a NO PITY policy to ANY of the housemates (male, female or robot) because they all know damn well where they are and that we can see everything.(Oh, and if you don't want the nation to judge you for the dumb things you do when drunk, don't get drunk). I'm going to be as intolerant of their stupid behaviour as I bloody well like HAHA.

I have "been there" I guess, and I tend to hate myself for doing it, but mainly for selfish reasons ie I didn't want to do that rather than I've been mean to whoever. I don't know if PJ is thinking like this, I doubt it, but I also doubt he's as guilt free as he seems. It's the attitude the next day that is his worst action.

I think it's possible to defend PJ and defend one night stands while drunk without being the same as "the men in the office" who are obviously a symbol for dickhead. (almost Ickean but that's another story)

But if it isn't possible then yes I am a man and I am in the office.

What makes BB fascinating is the way it so successfully demonstrates the fact that most people are completely unaware of their faults, 'faults' here meaning the things you do that hurt or annoy other people (eg Alex's bossiness, Sandy's grumpiness, Alison's loudness, PJ's callousness - all things some people at least would defend) as opposed to malicious behaviour, which is much rarer and surfaces on BB mainly in the context of gamesmanship.

It's a bit of a tangent I guess in this context because I'm starting to agree a bit more that what PJ did is a little worse based on the arguments put forward.

However I think Paul and Helen being able to hold themselves back does not implicate PJ solely but Jade just as much which was my argument anyway.

(I think in the real-world a kind of judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged attitude applies, you view your friends' actions with a kind of exasperated tolerance because you never entirely know that you wouldn't do something awful yourself. BB serves as a kind of national opportunity to play agony aunt - to be judgemental with no comeback.)

Remember when they both got up it was both their reactions to say that it didn't happen.

And while you are responsible for what you DO you are not responsible for how you FEEL about it afterwards unless you are a robot or something and nor can you predict how you will feel. PJ is getting slated not because of how he felt about it but, as everyone has said, because of how he handled it in front of the others.

I guess most of my friends and myself are closer to PJ than they are to most people here, I mean they're way more intelligent and funnier and things but in essence I don't know if the difference is massive. And I'm a bit ashamed of that maybe which translates itself into mild irritation. So there, I confess that there is PJ in me and in most of my best friends.

You and 65 others if the great man is to be believed.

I am just wondering what other behaviour would actual work for the first person who talks about the one night stand (being Jade or PJ). PJ's problem here is that he believes that Jade wants to continue. If she doesn't (which is quite possible with her boyfriend outside and the fact the PJ did most of the soliciting) then he would have been much better off not mentioning to the others and/or calling it a drunken night of fun that won't happen again after saying much the same to Jade. I think Ronan's point (might be wrong) is that because PJ has been an arsehole about it we must look upon Jade as the victim. By actively not forcing the issue earlier she was actually playing it cannily - and certainly gaining bonus sympathy points in the house (something she is already very, very good at doing).

This is the kind of dialogue we SHOULD be having, eh readers? (NB I came up with none of the above witty repartee ha ha)

I did that 17 posts ago! *sniff*

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Sorry, in joke

But one that went down very well.

The result's an odd situation wherein women can get involved with men then immediately break away ("That was a bad idea") and objections to this from the male side seem thick and babyish ("you got some action but she just doesn't like you so get over it") -- whereas if men get involved with someone and then immediately break away ("That was a bad idea") it's more likely to be interpreted as a selfish ploy to use the woman for the moment and then have done with it ("It was cruel of you to initiate things in the first place if you had no intention of etc. etc.")

The funny part is that neither sex uses these standards to their advantage: women are by and large smart enough not to fall into things with men they can't imagine at least potentially getting on with, and even well-meaning men consistently forget the "don't try to shag her if you don't actually like her" standard despite repeated and smashingly-clear next-morning demonstrations of why it's a good idea.

(It's very difficult to do a smegma joke without actually using the word "smegma"...)

Oh, this is a related thing I was thinking about the other day. In the male-initiated-romance model, women are able to get reassurances of their desirability without ever having to act on anything -- they will consistently be offered cheese they don't want to sample, and while many women complain about the irritating or boorish natures of these offerings I suspect there is a taken-for-granted phenomenon at work there. As a male in this framework you can never get full reassurance that your metaphorical cheese is appetizing without actually offering it, having it be accepted, and then actually handing it over: the only way to figure out that someone would, say, sleep with you involves actually sleeping with her.

I also want to note that I'm not necessarily complaining about this situation or claiming that men have it bad: surely the advantages of this system fall largely on the male side. But if you're like, say, me or Alang, you find yourself sort of unwilling or unable to take advantage of those male-advantages that are offered, which can be a bit frustrating. I'm guessing the Emma answers to this would be "chin up, quit whining and just get on with it" and "if you can't work it out for yourself it's your fault and no one needs your whining," both of which are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT but not always entirely reassuring.

How many times have you heard a guy say "I've been trying to break up with xXx for MONTHS now".

Male-ego again: you want to leave the relationship in such a way that (a) she is shattered, proving that you are incredibly desirable, plus (b) she doesn't resent you or think less of you for having left her (or worse not really seem too bothered about it). You want -- and this is funny -- the breakup where you stop seeing one another but she still loves you anyway? Right. (Add to this the thing where you want her to never move on and pine endlessly for the rest of her celibate life, even though you didn't, in the end, want her anyway.)

Forgive me, I am possibly just bitter and pessimistic about such things right now.