• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Big Brother
My God - HM's just cannot win :(
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
cword
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by zzenzero:
“someone else so elegantly said a slapper ”

*could he mean me?*

I've never been accused of being elegant before - are you flirting with me?
Boutros B Ghali
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Guys will screw anything so the question of shagging on camera doesn’t really apply to Stuart but no girls I know would be quite so eager to perform pornography while their friends and parents watch. Just close your eyes and think of £100,000 Michelle.”

Hmmm ... if I'd paid £4.95 for last night's fare I'd have been sorely disappointed.

Pornography? Shurely shome mishtake?

BBG <'Guys will screw anything'???>
Belgarion
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Could it have something to do with the fact that a couple of million people are watching her, newspapers will be splashing it all over the front pages and with her having seen previous BBs the assumption is that she knows exactly the sort of impact it will have vis a vis nominations and public interest. She was clearly gunning for girly-man from day one and to these jaded eyes the whole scenario smacks of contrivance. This is all post Helen /Paul, Jade/PJ and Kate/Spencer bear in mind. Michelle’s no fool.

I’m no moralist either but you’d think a little restraint would be in order. Same with the other HMs sobbing and missing their families already. It’s only been a couple of weeks away from them. My own theory is that any outré behaviour this early on is part of a larger performance designed to a) Garner attention with a view to increasing public profile upon leaving the house b) Safeguard against nomination while inside the house by creating a strong ally and promising more televised raunch. Stuart, while not an Alpha male like Victor or Jason, is clearly going to be one of the long-termers simply based on his looks if nothing else. An alliance with him would get Michelle through to the final stages. Of that I have no doubt.

Guys will screw anything so the question of shagging on camera doesn’t really apply to Stuart but no girls I know would be quite so eager to perform pornography while their friends and parents watch. Just close your eyes and think of £100,000 Michelle.”

Helen and Paul are together this very day. Jade/PJ was a drunked fumble, which noone 100% knows if it happened or not, and was clearly not a staged event to try and keep themselves in the house. Kate/Spencer? a few kisses (possibly) towards the end of the series, and I didn't see anything contrived there either.

Yes, Michelle was clearly attracted to Stu from day one. And? Isn't that allowed?

People such as yourself choose to be the cynic rather than the viewer. That's obviously your choice and your opinion. What I don't understand is on what basis this is on, given that NONE of the previous BB's have had any plants at all, no staged events designed to fool us into thinking it was real.

Sure, Michelle may well be doing all of this purely for the money, fame and future benefits. She could, however, fancied Stu to the point of wanting to shag him senseless. Time will tell which of these is the correct scenario.

Not all guys will not screw anything that moves. Didn't BB3 prove that one? Michelle is unaware of the £100,000 bonus for the first BB bonk - she was in isolation when that was announced.

Are you female?
Belgarion
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by cword:
“As for me being psychic Gypsy Petulegro on blackpool front once told me I might be”

That's plain scary lol - did he ask you if you could forsee yorself opening your wallet and handing him £5 for the reading?

cword
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Belgarion:
“That's plain scary lol - did he ask you if you could forsee yorself opening your wallet and handing him £5 for the reading?

”

YES!!!! OMG!!!! You're pshycic too
brian's eyebrow
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Belgarion:
“Why, because she slept with someone?

How predictibly pathetic - the typical response which has no basis in fact. Female sleeps with someone = slapper.

Pathetic.”

No. Becasue she slept with someone within 6 days of meeting them in front of the the whole world.

I think she's a slapper because she obviously doesn't respect herself and if she doesn't I don't see why I should.
metafis
04-06-2004
what about Stuart?, by your logic then Stuart is a 'slapper' as well, but you dont mention him.
biomorph04
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by DerekP:
“You obviously failed to appreciate the irony which is normally associated with a roll eyes smiley and choose to mount your high horse ”

sorry to go off on a tangent but i always assumed that smiley was the equivalent of someone tutting or tsking.

is their a course available anywhere for smiley literacy?
yidaho
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Belgarion:
“What is with the British Public?? If these boards are anything to go by, the HM's just have no chance at all.

Take Stu and 'Chelle last night. If they did have sex, then Michelle is a slut/slapper/glamour seeker/desperate. If they didn't, then they are both boring.”

I don't agree that Stuart and Michelle would've been branded 'boring' for not having sex last night, although you are right about her being a slut. And, 'course, Stuart being equally as bad, which you failed to mention. To me, they are boring housemates whether they shag on national teevee or otherwise.

Quote:
“So please, enlighten me what the HM's SHOULD be doing in order to win your affection, and your viewing time? What isn't happening that should be? Why is the first BB bonk so hyped up - and when it happens, the participating woman is branded a slut? Please, explain this to me because I really can't understand what it is people want.”

Well, as I said above, I certainly don't watch big brother to watch people getting jiggy. I like to see interesting interaction of other kinds, whether that be via open discussions, conflict or good ol' fashioned fun! Watching some dull studenty type do very little and some slapper whoring herself to millions is far from my ideal.
yidaho
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Belgarion:
“Michelle is unaware of the £100,000 bonus for the first BB bonk - she was in isolation when that was announced.”

There's been bonk money offered every year since BB2, IIRC. It wasn't a matter of 'if' this year, just a matter of 'how much more'. Of course Michelle is aware of this. It's one of the most keenly speculated subjects in the press.
prettyflowers
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by brian's eyebrow:
“No. Becasue she slept with someone within 6 days of meeting them in front of the the whole world.

I think she's a slapper because she obviously doesn't respect herself and if she doesn't I don't see why I should.”

Theres a part of Market Research called ethinography, where researchers spend time with people watching everything that they do and filming continuously. The filming is in peoples faces, and is not done through mirrors.

This is based on the tenent that after a couple of days, people who are being filmed continually cannot keep up an act for the cameras and act exactly as they would in real life. The cameras are largely forgotten. I think this goes some way to explaining what happened last night
yidaho
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by prettyflowers:
“Theres a part of Market Research called ethinography, where researchers spend time with people watching everything that they do and filming continuously. The filming is in peoples faces, and is not done through mirrors.

This is based on the tenent that after a couple of days, people who are being filmed continually cannot keep up an act for the cameras and act exactly as they would in real life. The cameras are largely forgotten. I think this goes some way to explaining what happened last night”

There were several references made to the cameras last night, though.
brian's eyebrow
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by metafis:
“what about Stuart?, by your logic then Stuart is a 'slapper' as well, but you dont mention him.”

Yes, you're right. Sadly, he'll get pats on the back, and "well done lad" from his mates.

But like it or not, society still places very different values on the sexual behaviour of men and women. They both know this. Ultimately, he cannot think much of of Michelle to put her through this, which once again lowers my opinion of hi9m and Michelle.

They both know full well the consequencies and know they're being watched by BB.

Strangely, imho, if she only slept with him to win the money on offer from the rags I might think more highly of her. Unfortuantely (?) she'll always be remembered as "that slapper from Big Brother".
metafis
04-06-2004
Thanks, good answer. You could have said that in the first place though, instead of just mentioning Michelle .
ludovica
04-06-2004
Sorry to rain on everyones parade, but it's just wrong to have sex, knowing it is going to be on TV, that you will make money from it etc etc.
As far as I'm concerned, I can't see the difference between that and Porn/Prostitution , and Yes, I think they are equally guilty.. as is the entire production team of Endemol
Midspan
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“ I can't see the difference between that and Porn/Prostitution , and Yes, I think they are equally guilty.. as is the entire production team of Endemol”

So who is the 'client'?
drakaina
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Belgarion:
“So what you're saying then is that you reserve the right to ruin someone's life because they agreed to appear on a TV Reality gameshow? Do you think other countries think like this? Does it give you some sort of peculiar pleasure when you realise that because someone did something that the majority of the voting public WANTED to happen, they can then be ridiculed to the point of causing emotional trauma outside of the house?

They may have signed away their rights to privicy within the house - I don't understand how that then means that every ounce of dirt and innuendo can be thrown at them from outside the house. Wasnt the original idea of BB to see how people reacted when placed under public scrutiny? I don't remember that including the tabloids rummiging through their closets to dig out long forgotten skeletetons.”

No, but then, given that's it's happened every other BB so far, you have to assume that the HM know what they are signing up for. And if there's no 'skeleton's' for the press to dig up, well then they just invent one themselves like 'i was pimped as a teenager', obviously failing to realize that their family are watching and likely to issue counter-statements to the effect of 'er...no she wasn't, she wasn't even living in that area at the time'. To avoid it being discovered that you were not, in fact a prostitute/ bisexual or a widower, it's much better to perform live sex acts on national TV
brian's eyebrow
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“As far as I'm concerned, I can't see the difference between that and Porn/Prostitution , and Yes, I think they are equally guilty.. as is the entire production team of Endemol”

After I posted my reply I immeadiately thought that this made her little more than a prostitute- sleeping with someone for money.

Perhaps we're all getting hung up on our out-moded ideas of sex?

If you fancy someone, shouldn't you just be able to shag them, provided there are no other parties (wives/husbands/parters etc) to concider?
metafis
04-06-2004
Again 'she' is likeened to a prostitute. Is the money for the first BB on screen shag purely for the female participant, or is it shared between both?. afaik Stuart hasnt paid her any money for sex.

Brians eyebrow. I agree with your last two paragraphs though.
Bodders
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Midspan:
“So who is the 'client'?”

Well, that would be all of us

Yes, we're as guilty as all the other players - the tabloids, the contestants, the TV company in this. We should have stood up when all the 'reality tv' started and said that it was degrading and shouldn't be allowed. Instead we watched this modern version of the Victorian freak show and we've got what we deserved.

I've actually not watched much this year so far, though I never watch much in week one anyway. Part of me has felt an increasing discomfort that this show plays on and to the worst parts of human nature and we should be 'above' it by now.

I like to think that had I been up in the early hours, I'd have done the 'dignified thing' (from my viewpoint, not the contestants) and turned off.

Given that I've read the live updates and will watch the show tonight, I suspect I'd have been cheering on voyeuristically with everyone else and making the same quick judgements. I'll probably be there as usual come week four/five totally gripped and loving some contestants and hating others.

I may just have to start cheering for Michelle who I do feel sorry for because of the way she'll be treated. Just part of the usual societal differences with the way women are treated and the denial of their sexual nature, which is just as great as men's.

On the other hand, she did choose to enter the house herself and anyone who does now, given they know exactly what will happen, is totally nuts.
Bap Squeezer
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“Sorry to rain on everyones parade, but it's just wrong to have sex, knowing it is going to be on TV, that you will make money from it etc etc.
As far as I'm concerned, I can't see the difference between that and Porn/Prostitution , and Yes, I think they are equally guilty.. as is the entire production team of Endemol”

At the other end of the spectrum, my comment on the whole thing is BFHD, Big Fat Hairy Deal
Jazmin
04-06-2004
I agree with Straker on this subject.

While Belgarion brings up some interesting ideas, I can't help but keep hearing in my head that this is BB5 - not BB1. Each and every housemate knows full well what he/she has gotten into. Each one of them thinks themselves so fantastic - that they are willing to subject themselves to all this attention, scrutiny, and lack of privacy - all for what? For the chance of celebrity? For money?

I can tell you right now, I value my right to go to the loo in private, more than any money.

BB is a car crash - something we all can't help but look at. And they went thru all these motions & interviews because each one of them was GAGGING to be one of the rats in the laboratory.

Michelle knows full well what happened to Jade after the BJ for PJ. Yet even with that deterrent in her head, she still went for it.

I personally, think it would have been much wiser to keep the tension building. Kind if like 'will they or won't they?' 'who will she pick?'. I think now that the deed is pretty much done, it's over for her. Betcha she gets tossed out tonite.

Shagging a man 6 days after meeting him? Well personally it's not for me - but I would think there'd be some shame involved with that. Especially if you know the country's watching. Especially if your family is watching. But she's willing to sell her morals (if she has any), sleep with a veritable stranger - who, let's face it, didn't seem that keen anyways, come out to her family that she's 'bi' (poor Granny's having heart failure), and what else? I guess time will tell. But she's proven that NOTHING else is as important as her quest forcelebrity and/or money.

And that's what makes her a slapper.
metafis
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“Sorry to rain on everyones parade, but it's just wrong to have sex, knowing it is going to be on TV, that you will make money from it etc etc. ”

What about simulated sex?, or is it just actual penetration thats wrong?
metafis
04-06-2004
Originally Posted by Jazmin:
“I agree with Straker on this subject.

While Belgarion brings up some interesting ideas, I can't help but keep hearing in my head that this is BB5 - not BB1. Each and every housemate knows full well what he/she has gotten into. Each one of them thinks themselves so fantastic - that they are willing to subject themselves to all this attention, scrutiny, and lack of privacy - all for what? For the chance of celebrity? For money?

I can tell you right now, I value my right to go to the loo in private, more than any money.

BB is a car crash - something we all can't help but look at. And they went thru all these motions & interviews because each one of them was GAGGING to be one of the rats in the laboratory.

Michelle knows full well what happened to Jade after the BJ for PJ. Yet even with that deterrent in her head, she still went for it.

I personally, think it would have been much wiser to keep the tension building. Kind if like 'will they or won't they?' 'who will she pick?'. I think now that the deed is pretty much done, it's over for her. Betcha she gets tossed out tonite.

Shagging a man 6 days after meeting him? Well personally it's not for me - but I would think there'd be some shame involved with that. Especially if you know the country's watching. Especially if your family is watching. But she's willing to sell her morals (if she has any), sleep with a veritable stranger - who, let's face it, didn't seem that keen anyways, come out to her family that she's 'bi' (poor Granny's having heart failure), and what else? I guess time will tell. But she's proven that NOTHING else is as important as her quest forcelebrity and/or money.

And that's what makes her a slapper.”

here we go again. and why isnt Stuart a slapper?, why all the critique against the female and no mention of the Male?
he was just as much a willing party. Does it not occur to anyone that HE will also get the money.
anna123
04-06-2004
a lot of people have one night stands! I mnea at least michelle have waited 7 days! And for all you know when they come out the house they may do a helen and paul in still be together after 3 years!!! yoiur just dont know!
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map