I dont think that it is fair to say we must congratulate Cameron. I for one didnt care who won, as long as it wasnt him. My reasons are simple. I believe he was boring. The guy continually moaned about drinking and having fun. It is not a message tI would like sent to me ,as the public, as entertaining. I also didnt like that channel 4 edited a lot of his flaws away and this year there was blatant bias towards Cameron by channel 4. I think we should see characters wrts and all and equal focus on all contestants. Also, Cameron professed to be the moral leader and following the christian life (Im sure what won him the series) but then proceeded to act in an unchristian way, with his constant bitching and sniping and rather angry/violent (not sure best word here) comments made- rarely shown on channel 4. Lots of incidents were edited in a way that didnt show you the true story that had Cameron coming off in a better light than if youd watched the whole thing on E4 - youd get a different view there. Even the ex-housemates, inc Gos, said they could see that there was Cameron bias and editing going on in RISE and that says a lot to me. Basically the boring guy in the house won and it really shows by the figures voted as they are far lower than last year. I disliked Alex last year but could see him as entertaining. I like Scotts personality this year, but can see he is also a little boring and Ray more entertaining. I personally didnt find Cameron's constant belittling of people, sniping and bitching and moaning about the drinking entertaining - he went to South Africa and that is the only entertainment factor with him and lets face it - he shouldnt have won just because he went to South Africa.

Based on first impressions all those weeks ago I thought that Cameron may win... It was nothing more than a guess. He was some bookies favourite for a couple of hours on that first day.

Personally, I wanted Jon/Fed to win initially.

Once they had left I touted Ray to win... Now that Cameron has won I am completely indifferent to the whole affair.

Did the best man win..?

However, I am not a sore loser...

Opinions,beliefs,ideals..

Cameron never said or implied that he was homophobic, yes he did quote from the bible and said that is what he believed but someone who is a christian and involved in the church generally takes on the gospel of the bible.

Apparently he was baptised and and 'found' christianity two years ago so his comment that he does not belive in sex before marriage applies now but has it always applied? His pals from Orkney told a radio station that Cameron was definitly not a virgin so perhaps his views have changed. He's bound to be asked the question so lets wait for his answer, that's if it is anyone else's business. If Cameron now choses to wait until he is married well good for him, it seems people are damned if they sleep around and damned if they don't.

Well done Cameron, winner BB4.

btw..Cameron is certainly the one who has caused much of the debate, what would BB4 have been without him.

couldn't agree with you more! Cameron never said he didn't have any gay or lesbian friends, he was asked for his opinion and he gave it with a quote from the bible in which he believes!
Jesus treated everyone equally and that is how Cameron is trying to live is life, I don't for one minute think he's homophobic!
as for the editing, i think this actually did him no favours as they cut his conversations to make him look like a religous freek which he isn't! I personally know several people who don't believe in sex before marriage and totally respect them for it as in this day and age it is extremely difficult to do!
Hope he finds a wife soon as he will make a lovely kind and caring husband for some lucky girl!!!!

WELL DONE CAM!! SCOTLANDS PROUD OF YOU!!

Lisa you'll be interested to know that statistically a marriage lasts longer if the couple do not sleep with each other/have sex and live together before the marriage. Logically that should not be true but people are not logic machines. By the way why is it unhealthy for Cameron not to have had a sexual relationship?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/h_images/buster.jpg

~~stu

Thank you for this, you are absolutely right of course. Had the same thing with my younger sister, except I don't think she did a great deal of agonizing. If anything, her accepting her homosexuality helped, as it clarified many things.
Anyway I hope that your brother has found happiness and a loving relationship, the most important things after all.
Mave
a weird non-churchgoing christian who believes in equal rights for all and knows the Bible has a lot of dross in amongst the good bits

This in fact is not really true

Why do studies show that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples who marry without living together?

These studies' conclusions are frequently misrepresented in the media. Basically, studies like these are comparing apples and oranges. Most couples today live together before they marry, and research shows that on average, couples who marry without living together tend to be more religious, more conservative, and more opposed to divorce (as you'd expect). So these studies actually show that people who are more opposed to divorce are less likely to divorce -- which is not particularly surprising. Researchers have found that when you "control" for the differences between the two groups, the cohabitation-divorce link decreases considerably or vanishes entirely, depending on the study. The idea that living together ruins relationships is not strongly supported in the research. These studies receive a great deal of publicity because conservative groups use them to try to revive "traditional" marriage

It is unhealthy for cameron not to have had a sexual relationship as sex is a natural, normal, everyday adult practise and to not have experianced this by the age of 32 is not natural or normal.

Don't people die of old age at 32 on Orkney....I'd say it would be unnatural not to attempt to breed by then

Mind you..It's got to come out somehow....Clean sheets or a Ray?

Just want to say thank you, thank you lisa_75 for such an excellent and informative post. The same thing happens so often with studies on other potentially contentious issues, eg. children in single-parent and step- families - they're all delinquent drug users, until you control for socio-economic status, for example.
Cheers!

You`re welcome! Having been happily "unmarried" for 10 years I get quite annoyed when people show marriage as the ideal. In that time we have seen quite a few couples marry and then divorce which shows that a happy family is more about love and commitment than a piece of paper.

Excellent post, Lisa. The show's finished and the forum's still an interesting place to be!

So what about monks who take a vow of chastisty? Are they unhealthy? Face it, everyone is different and have different experiences. I don't think you will convince many people that everyone should have the same experiences (or indeed opinions) as you.

One final thing: define "normal". I'm disabled and I hear the word "normal" all the time whe people discuss disabled and non diasabled people. Don't get me wrong, if I could define what "normal" is I would think I'd be a rich man. But "normal" is different for everybody. What I consider to be normal will no doubt not be considred normal by someone else. So, it may not be "normal" for you not to have had sex etc etc before mariage but to someone else it is entirely normal.

I for one am glad "normal" means something different to everyone - the world would be a lot pooer for our "normal" behaviour..

You what ?

The main purpose of sex is to reproduce, I think you forget. Ok, we have sexual urges, but this is actually human instinct telling us to reproduce, not to have some nookie. After all, that is the sole purpose of all lifeforms on earth - to survive, and this is done by having as many offspring as possible as there was a high death rate.

Obviously with the start of civilisation we found new ways to sustain human life and we were quickly being over populated. Ever studied Sociology or Geography ???

Well, if not, there are 5 stages to the demographic representation of each country. The first stage is before civilisation, where humans have sex as often as possible, because there is a high death rate. Until stage 5, where sex is more of a pleasure thing (we still need to feed our desire to reproduce, just we prevent the reproduction from happening) and the death rate and birth rate flutuate to give a roughly stable population level, but there are the occassional fluctuations (or "baby booms" ) that give a small increase, and the odd disease the brings a small decrease.

Anyway, my point is, that rather than using sex as YOU said, it is better kept for someone that you want children with. If people kept to that, we wouldn't have little slappers getting up the duff before they grow into adulthood themselves.

Then they sponge off the state, and the children grow up uneducated because the mother is thick, he/she doesn't know her/his dad and they grow up to do the same.

It is natural, and everyday, but as a species we don't jump from women to women - we are a species that naturally has sex to have children (before technology intervened - ie: the pill and contraceptives) and then the father remains with the mother to raise their young. This is seen in the animal kingdom all the time. Raising children was a two parent thing even before the days of early civilisation - that is before we had jobs to go to.

What I think you seem to forget is - look at the timescale of human life - now look at how long contraceptives have been involved in human life. Right - figured that out ???

Contraceptives and sex at will with any women has only been around for a very small portion of human life.

Now you started of with an eduacted post - but that last comment added a tint of crap really towards the end.

Getting back on topic now, Cameron is a good, healthy role model because of this, and if your child said they don't believe in sex before marriage give them a bloody medal !!! OK, some aspects of his ideas were awful - but this aspect is a good idea.

some people do behave 'abnormally'
so what is acceptable to some people
may not be acceptable to other people
but i do get the point you are making

That's very true. And I'd like to add that the studies quoted by the traditionalists have another defect - they include among their 'living together' couples those who serially move on to new live-in relationships, ie those who have no intention, ever, of settling down in permanent commitments, although they sometimes marry and divorce serially. These are the ones to whom you refer when you say that some studies, those which allow for and recognise this type of person, show no difference whatsoever in the divorce statistics for those who choose to live together before marriage. In fact, there is some evidence to show, in these most recent studies, that cohabitation of a fairly committed couple before marriage, lowers the risk of divorce.
I have had considerable experience of dealing with the fall-out from virgin marriages - not that I'm criticising them, just pointing to the fact that there can be unexpected difficulties. One poor couple had been 'making love' in the wife's navel.

"wicked" being the operative word or do I mean evil.

[quote]Originally posted by Mr_X
[b]You what ?



It is natural, and everyday, but as a species we don't jump from women to women - we are a species that naturally has sex to have children (before technology intervened - ie: the pill and contraceptives) and then the father remains with the mother to raise their young.
/QUOTE]

If the only point of sex was to have children, then the female clitoris, which is the only organ in the body which has no purpose but to provide sexual pleasure would have been rendered redundant. Yes, we make love to have children, but we also make love to give each other pleasure, to express our joy in our relationship, to affirm our commitment, and to release tension. Sex is not merely reproduction, but is an integral part of what we call love, and this gives our life purpose. Sex between humans is not the same as sex between cats and cats or dogs and dogs, as you seem to categorise it.

The definition of homophobia also includes discriminating against a person because of their homosexuality and Cam's comments certainly did that.

Didn;t know that - there is no relation to phobia then. That is just plain discrimination in that instance.


Yes, it is the fact of the love we have for each other that keeps the couples togther to raise the children. And, there is the need to have sex every so often, so really that is to encourage the reproduction to happen all the time.

And as I categorise it - that was the basic functions before civilisation was it not ???

i am not too sure the love part has relevance to what you are saying about the time period I refer to. the smell of the opposite sex attracted men and they found them natually attractive, therefore nobody had to explain what they did for some nookie. Now we teach kids sex education - there were no such thing in those days - even before articulate speech I am talking about here !


Obviously it is this pleasure that attracts the women back to having more and more children - it does have relevance to the whole reproduction thing you know

Aprox 1 in 5 couples have fertility problems. Should they not be allowed to have sex for the sake of enjoyment even though they know they are unlikely to conceive?

Of course they can - I think you are missing what I am saying. I am not saying we can only have sex to have children - I am only saying people forget why we have sex, and why I think it is perfectly normal for Cameron to wait until being married first.

There is nothing wrong with sex for enjoyment - or using contraception either - but I am merely defending Cameron and other people who believe in no sex before marriage against.....


and