Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

Discussing it is interesting, I just find it distasteful when their sexual behaviour is used as a stick to beat them with.

But I do think anyone who says "I dislike so and so because they had sex" is an idiot

Hey don't get me wrong, I think it's perfectly valid and healthy when people can discuss jealously and it not descend instantly into posters rushing in who doth protest too much and/ or dismiss it out of hand. For some, it's as if it couldn't ever possibly exist and as such the word should probably be taken out of the dictionary!

I totally agree that there are also people who lazily toss that word around at anyone who dares to criticise a women. That to me is almost more annoying that those who 'protest too much' as it totally takes it off topic and is nothing but a complete sidetrack to what is an interesting subject. We should be able to discuss it though, I agree.

I think it's perfectly normal for women to be able to criticise other women and this totally includes their physical appearance and it be totally unconnected to jealousy.

Others don't seem to be able to make any distinction. That to me is a shame, and it stifles, nay kills debate stone dead.

As for the HMs I definitely have those I prefer and those I dislike. I just don't seem to invest in them quite as much as perhaps many other BB viewers do. This doesn't mean I can't post on them though.

Not saying this is any better or worse before I get accused of being suprior again! . Each to their own.

It wasn't Ashleigh and Christopher that she was talking about it to, it was Steven and Kimberly. After having another look, she did tell Steven and Kimberly that she didn't talk to anyone that she didn't know, but that was only one small thing. She mostly told the truth about what went on.

Agree I see it as silly to dislike someone just because they had sex. Usually the manner of the whole thing how it came about e.t.c e.t.c are way more reason to dislike especially on BB

I was trying to say this earlier, sort of, much less eloquently. The gender of the person doesn't matter to me, it doesn't seem relevant. I want to know why some people seem to revel in having no empathy, no ability to reason, no internal logic to their position, and in unpleasant name calling. Does nobody do any soul searching or thinking things through any more?

Criminal Psychologists have actually discovered that there is a physiological basis for the question that you ask. There is a region of the brain that is responsible for empathy with others. Some people have a very small/nil said region. Interestingly, the studies found that prisoners were more likely to have smaller/nil regions cf. non-prisoners.

Whoops forgot to reply. Again, all good stuff (and don't worry brain no brain frazzled as yet).

I think there's a lot to be said for Darwinian theory and survival of the fittest in all manner of people, situations, jobs, etc etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kD...loNrw&index=26

If you're still tracking the thread, I wanted to comment on ^this bit. Two points:

(i) Lesser point - if like me you see no shame in a woman expressing her inner slut (although maybe it's not practical behaviour 24/7) then no woman's going to curry favour with me by "slut shaming" other women. I'm just going to see nastiness, bitchiness, jealousy rooted in unattractive insecurity. But then this is a moot point if I'm in the minority of men, because perhaps the majority of men are attracted to insecurity in women. (Even when it manifests as spitefulness? Hmm.)

(ii) When Marlon spoke to Ash about there being no "slutbuckets" in there, I don't think either of them would have invested that term with much disparagement. Not the most graceful, poetic language in the world, granted, but they might just as well have said "up for it" or "hot to trot" or "a goer" and meant the same thing. I don't think they were attaching shame to being a "slut". They were talking about imaginary women who might be open to having sex with them, and who they might like to have sex with. If they thought those imaginary women would have anything to be ashamed about in that event, then surely they'd be doing themselves down. "I wish a girl would come along who's despicable enough to have sex with anyone, even me" would be a low ego statement.

I've only just come back to this thread after going out so I haven't read all the posts beyond about page 2. Apologies if I am not up with the debate.
However in respect of this post alone. I think you make a fair point (ii) especially the last point. But then again isn't the objection to this sort of statement because it betrays a double standard in many a male mind. I wish a girl would come along who is despicable enough to have sex with anyone - even me. But I wouldn't want to have a LT relationship/marry such a girl, wouldn't want to introduce her to my friends and family and its OK providing she is someone else's mother, sister etc. In other words the classification of nice girls who don't and nasty girls that do.

That was uploaded on the 15th. I thought you meant on Wednesday night's episode.

Edit: Yeah, she did lie to them when she said she didn't do the webcam. She's definitely trying to portray herself as little miss innocent.

and the bottomless one of her 'laydeeeee'

I guess so. I've never seen an episode of Snog Marry Avoid - is it both men judging women and women judging men, or only one way? The snog/marry part illustrates what you're saying I suppose, but stick with the snog and don't get married I say.

(Them poor LGBTs hardly get a look-in do they. No Snog Marry Avoid, no Take Me Out, no that hideous looking thing with Brian McFadden. Hmm, come to think of it they're well out of it aren't they.)

I haven't watched snog/marry/avoid or take me out etc. I limit myself to one tabloid telly show a year and this is it! But I assume the former is along the lines of the nice girls you marry and naughty girls you don't.

Interesting thing is that so many men marry the nice girls that don't, wonder why they aren't getting much and then spend their lives sniffing around to find a 'not so nice girl' that will. Can't help wondering if they had just married the goer in the first place they could save themselves a lot of hassle and legal fees/alimony etc.

Danielle annoys me most of all because she's bullshitting everyone (and herself) about her life, using silly religion as a means to wash herself clean AND judge others by it. It's false and hypocritical.

Bianca is OTT with the whole thing, but I guess she's being honest and upfront. Whatever she is she's owning it. Probably too much!

If you're gonna get your tits out, do it cause you want to and don't hide behind smoke screens to make yourself feel better.

Part of classifying them into the bad girls who will and the good girls who won't is the slut label - if she'll do it with him, she'll do it with anyone, therefore, she is somehow incapable of monogamy.

I was watching some episodes of The Real World this year (don't judge me). They had one male hm who had serious trust issues. He'd wanted to lose his virginity to another virgin. He thought he had, then found out several years later, after the relationship ended, that she'd lied about it. This all happened a few years before the show, but it made him unable to trust the girl he was dating on the show (another hm). He's an extreme case, and probably could use a few good years of therapy, But he's a pretty good living, breathing example of the thought process.

And this is nudging at the door of my problem with it Flights. There are plenty of men I know who don't want to be (and are not) monogamous themselves but absolutely expect their wives to be and often what the fidelity of their mistresses too. It starts to get a bit too close to ownership for my liking.

This might be biological and to do with maximising the chances of passing on genes together with the difficulty a man has of knowing his own offspring. So I have sympathy to the instinctive desires but feel that by now in our evolution we should be able to use reason to overcome the instinctive urges.

whilst I personally have no problem with it, the short length of time Bianca has been there with the intensity of her sexuality probably is the major issue people have.

As a group we self-police exceedingly well, in ALL areas of life where a damning opinion can be expressed. I don't think it necessarily has as much to do with sexuality in particular as with ensuring everything stays the way it 'should be' - or in other words, stable, secure, safe - ie: 'the same.'

That cartoon you posted put it well. Women are critical of the way, other women raise their children. The way their homes look; how tidy, neat or 'new' they are. They are critical of how other women dress and how fat or thin they are. Women are critical of other women using female charms to further their career. Women are critical of female bosses being too 'masculine.'

We have multiple generations of sublimated self-hatred to work with, and now we do a great job at leaving the men to run around starting wars and killing and dying (some of them anyway), while by contrast we ensure that the really important things are maintained; like a sparkling kitchen sink, and ostracising that disgusting loose mother (so sad for the children.)

It's hard for me to give an answer 'from a female perspective' because when I reflect, I can't find those internalised critical voices that so many women must suffer from. Lucky me I think. My feelings about other women are the same as they are for all other people; what other people do for fun, so long as they're not actively harming someone else, is their own damn business and none of mine.

It's a pretty simple principle I apply to most situations in life. Apart from something like Big Brother where we are specifically being invited to damn or praise. Even then I'd be surprised if I were to look back at my posts and find anything seriously critical of another woman's sexual behaviour, that's not to say that I wouldn't find anything like that. We are all full of contradictions.

As an aside, did you ever read 'The Handmaid's Tale'? It's a really great description of women, trapped in an oppressive religious regime, being brainwashed into self-hating and self-policing. And the power issues at play. It's a fantasy, but not so far from the truth maybe.

Wow, and this thread was doing so well until I posted

Oops, sorry I hadn't seen it! Firstly I cringe a bit whenever I see one of my posts that has a number of spelling errors/ typos, so sorry for that. That aside, again a genuinely interesting post and thank you for taking the time to reply esp with the detail as you did.

That all seems fairly spot on to me BB Girl, and I think your take on the cartoon I posted pretty much matches my own. I think it's fairly accurate with this place.

I too don't really giving a damn what other people get up to for fun, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. 'Consenting adults' and all that as far as I'm concerned.

Your thinking and thoughts in your post are largely similar to what my thoughts on this are

I have read a number of things re gender differences, although I have not heard of The Handmaid's Tale', but that actually does sound quite interesting. (not saying I'm going to read it, ha ha, but I may well look online for the general gist of it).

Like Huxley's Brave New World, sometimes fiction and. fantasy can have very real meaning and application in the real world too, I agree.

NP, I'm sure it won't be the last time I assassinate a thread As for spelling errors, I do try to correct blindingly obvious mistakes, but I don't think we should all be too formal - it undermines the relaxed conversational nature of internet discussion. Where poor syntax or spelling genuinely undermine the effectiveness of communication, then it's worth treating more seriously IMO.

Your posts are brilliant Blackberry girl as are AOTB's and some others. One of the best threads of the season in my opinion. But next time when you decide to have a good meaty discussion would you check I am going to be home and available to join in please. Pretty please?

Watch the movie. It gets across the main ideas, though they gave it a pollyanna ending instead of stopping where the book stops (the last scene isn't in the book).

Some of the responses are down to the colour of skin. I've seen a variety of different women (using the word loosely) on big brother, who have been the same or worse, but it didn't result in the questions regarding the nature of sex on the show.

She's deserving of contempt but people are having a laugh if they believe she's the one to lower the shows quality.