Josh has just stated (at around 3:15 am) that he only entered the house to be "a gay role model".

Kids: please, please, please don't emulate either Brian or Josh (or any other stereotypes from the gay "scene" or media) just because you fancy other persons of the same gender. Just be yourselves, don't restrict your feelings and don't believe that you have to act, dress or think in certain ways based on who you happen to be attracted to.

If you want a role model, think more Bradley from Crossroads.

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]

With *those* sideburns? ROTFLMAO

Katie.

They're unusual, I admit, but I rather like them. Perhaps because, like many other aspects of the character, they signify that he's an individual who chooses his own style unbound by fashions or stereotypes. It's that aspect that I feel is worthy of respect and emulation. I don't want to see a country full of Bradley clones (although they'd be infinitely preferable to Brian clones, Josh clones or, for that matter, "clone" clones ), but of people who can be themselves without their personas being dictated almost entirely by their perception of their sexuality.

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]

I totally agree with you!

I just hope that people realise they are two individuals and representative of the gay community as a whole.

As for labelling himself "a gay role model" if Josh's head gets any bigger he'll never be able to leave the BB house!

SORRY!

Read "not representative" instead of "representative" in the above post. That will teach me to prrof read!

PS Can't comment on Crossroads, never seen it.

You should - it's so awful it's great. I've only missed one episode of the new series.

Katie.

Unfortunately, katie, the new [I}Crossroads[/i] isn't as awful as the original (they now use super whizz-bang new technology -- such as "editing") but it's close . For anyone interested in the media portrayal of unconventional sexuality, however, it's worth viewing for Bradley alone. He's probably the least stereotypical homosexual male character I've seen in a television series since This Life[*]. Unfortunately, like most gay men in soap operas, he's squeaky clean and almost entirely inoffensive (his darkest attribute seems to be that he has a history of sleeping with more than two partners in a single year!), but this is Crossroads after all.

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]
[*] I can forgive Queer As Folk, though, because of its "scene" setting. It also had controversially flawed characters. The character of Kevin in Jonathan ("Beautiful Thing") Harvey's latest play, Out in the Open is also nicely drawn, but I think the show's run has now ended (after two sell-out seasons at the Hampstead Theatre).

And thanks for correcting that typo, Mr Matey. I thought there was something wrong with that statement . I would take issue with the concept of a "gay community", though (or that of any "community" of people with a single shared personal attribute, a semantic corruption that I find particularly irritating), but that would take this thread even further off-topic.

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR] (posting a separate message as he still seems unable to delete his own posts)

I only use the phrase "Gay Community" for convenience. The idea of splitting any particular group down to a seperate community (e.g. the Manchester Gay Village) is, IMHO, a bad thing.

It's not really a brilliant vision of the future if everyone lives in their own little village. Not to mention ever so slightly boring.

I know that the "X community" phrase can be difficult to avoid at times, despite knowledge of its fallacy. There have even been occasions when I've resorted to it myself . We're all multifaceted beings and each of us is a metaphorical member of a thousand different "communities". To quote one of my favourite Python sequences:

Brian: You are all individuals.
Masses. WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Lone voice: I'm not.

(Or, as I put it myself: each of us is different, just like everyone else ).

[COLOR=purple]H.[/COLOR]