Archive through September 28, 2000

The ClubHouse: Big Brother 2000: General - Archives: Questions, questions and more questions: Was what Josh did a harmless prank?: Archive through September 28, 2000

Zyxokid

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 01:53 pm Click here to edit this post

I feel that this a topic worth discussing. If my perceptions are wrong, I honestly would like to be set straight. Am I being a self-rightous prude?

The way I perceived it, Josh exposed his genitals in front of children all over the world. It was obvious that he purposely did it for the web camera. No one would question that. The problem is that there is no "late hour" on the web, it was the middle of the afternoon in many parts of the world, six pm in Australia. Plus, kids watch in this country at hours they should be in bed. Josh has made many references to his six year old niece watching. It makes sense that other six year old girls would be watching too, in fact in the US many kids are on the net at the time he did that (maybe even his niece). Is Josh just misguided or confused or is he a vulgar, perverted misguided person? If he did what he did what he did in other public venues would he be a sex offender? Am I offbase here? Are my perceptions too prudish?

Am I wrong in thinking that it is inappropriate to pull down your pants and expose your genitals? Was his jumping up and down and laughing about it a normal act? My culture has taught me that such actions are an act of a distorted, perverted mind. Am I wrong about this? Every jurisdiction in the US has laws against his act in public with severe penalties.

Perhaps he thought it was late at night when kids are asleep? Perhaps it is because he is just a young guy? Maybe our culture has changed so much that this type of act is now to be just smiled at. Maybe I am the one who is offbased in taking offense. Help me out here.

Kearie

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:00 pm Click here to edit this post

Boys will be boys.

Bigbromo

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:01 pm Click here to edit this post

Hey, Josh! Can we see it again??? I missed it the first time!

Georgeliveson

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:02 pm Click here to edit this post

Are you at it again? I'm glad your last thread was yanked.

Rmgreco

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:06 pm Click here to edit this post

The BB site has a warning on it that says that it is not suitable for children.

BUT

I don't think that nakedness is such a horrible thing for kids to see. They see TONS of violence on TV. Nakedness isnt so bad. Now if he was having sex on the trampoline, that would be not suitable.

Nodepth

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:06 pm Click here to edit this post

You aren't a prude but you're off base with your outrage. Cameras are on the HGs when they're in the shower and the toilet. Blaming the HGs for what goes out over the feeds is silly. CBS has the option at any time of shifting the feed to another camera. They have done this routinely. There are a large number of people behind the scenes.

Kirabira

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:07 pm Click here to edit this post

umm there is a disclaimer that states if you arent over 18 you shouldnt be watching. Why would children be watching this? I hope parents are more involved in their kids lives than you suggest.. I mean if kids want porn they can just search on that and find it no problem. Not to mention you could barely see anything and the webcam was manipulated so you wouldnt see much. plus what if a kid saw a man jumping on a trampoline with his bottom and stuff hanging out? Do you really think that kid is damaged. Its not like they had sex on the cam like in the uk. If you are stressed over this i really dont think you should ever step into an art museum where *gasp* they keep all kinds of naked art!

Note:CBS/Endemol's 'Big Brother' is not scripted and is not intended for younger audiences. CLICK HERE to learn more.

viewer advisory:
http://webcenter.bigbrother2000.aol.com/entertainment/NON/article26.html

Kara

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:08 pm Click here to edit this post

Yes, you're a prude. Just kidding! Sort of.
Actually, I have lived in Europe on two different ocassions, for a total of 7 years compliments of the U.S. Navy.

Nudity on European T.V. is a normal prime-time daily occurence.
I even saw commercails during the day which featured partial nudity. These were commercials for soap/shampoo/body spray ect...

America is uniquely puritanical in its view of the human body.
For instance, nudity does not earn an automatic R rating in Europe but violence does.

Zyxokid

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:09 pm Click here to edit this post

Georgeliveson, it's the same thread. I just changed it from the declarative mood to the pluperfect subjunctive making it less inflamatory.
The topic is a real one. What kind of person exposes themself? Does everything go now or is some behavior not acceptable?

Maury

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:13 pm Click here to edit this post

I thinks it's important to remember that the so-called "live feeds" are actually delayed by a couple minutes (5 minutes for me) so the control room could have switched to the chicken-cam in plenty of time had they wished. As warped and disfunctional as the BB house is :) , it IS their home and anything done in their home and is consentual is their business. The business of releasing it to air is up to CBS. Having said that, we could have hours upon hours of conversation on why Josh reacts to alcohol by taking his clothes off repeatedly. :)

Sandycatz

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:16 pm Click here to edit this post

Any parents letting their young children watch Big Brother on the net should be ashamed of themselves this is an adults only website.

Kearie

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:19 pm Click here to edit this post

If I could hang out nude 24/7 I would. Nothing wrong with nakedness. People make the naked body an object of...whatever. It is the most facsinating, complex object every created.

To some individuals it inspires lust, to others mortification or shame. It is in our own perceptions.

It has also been the subject of many wonderful peices of art.

Folks who live in nudest colonies don't walk around sexually excited all the time. They have control and find the human body atractive, not sexual.

The more Americans that shun nudity and sex, the more it will be a subject of lust, violence, sexual diseases and eating disorders.

I wanna be NEKKED and play TWISTER.

Kino1234

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:24 pm Click here to edit this post

Sorry Zyxokid... I'll have to agree with the majority of those who have responded thusfar. First, there are the AOL viewer warnings. The internet is here to stay, and if children are accessing sites that their parents consider as inappropriate, then it's the PARENTS' fault. Second of all, I travel to Europe and Asia and Latin America constantly, and there are very few countries out there that are so "Puritanistic" as the United States. The fact that so many parents try to hide such commonplace occurrences such as nudity from their children only contributes to the children's curiosity. But that, in my opinion, is a North American phenomena which would deserve a more indepth discussion.
As for Josh's brief display, I would consider that not only as harmless, but long overdue anyways. I'm sure that there are many people in aggrement with me that Josh is extremely good looking, and has an exquisite body at that! More power to you, Josh! Hope you win!

Prince

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:26 pm Click here to edit this post

Maury, the live feeds particulary the broadband ones are only delayed by maybe 10-20 seconds. If they suddenly expose, there is little time to switch right away to chicken cams.

Zyxokid, why are you putting it all on Josh, Eddie has exposed himself also later during the bathroom scene?

Actually I don't think either is to blame, they were just having fun and the web feeds have a disclaimer as previously mentioned.

Hinten

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:37 pm Click here to edit this post

Oh say can you see...

It is perfectly alright to show somebody blowing somebody else's brain out every day on TV but a naked person causes outrage.
Exposing, btw, is a sexual act or an act of aggression. Being naked is not sexual nor aggressive nor anything.
Any other puritans out there?

Ryn

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:41 pm Click here to edit this post

He flashed on a bet - they did not think the camera was on.

They had been drinking.

Drunk guys do stupid things, I know, I meet the criteria (a guy and I have gotten drunk before).

Josh was not thinking "are children up at this hour watching the live feeds?"

Also, the house guests do not think all the cameras can be fed to the net. They are under the impression only a few can be viewed (as it has been in other houses).

Btw - if memory serves there is a seven second delay on the live feeds. Blame BB - not Josh.

If you have been outraged at the makers of BB you would probably find more support.

Joynow98

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 04:22 pm Click here to edit this post

Nudity is not nasty. Josh is just being a goof. He's just trying to let out a little steam by being a little daring and way too drunk. If we really want to be concerned with poor Josh, let's worry about his drinking. I personally find America's Funniest Home Videos with all their "testicular injuries" more obscene than a little light-hearted nudity. This is an adult show anyway. Our culture is so backwards...we take beautiful expressions of humanity like nudity and loving sexuality and make it more taboo than violence, hatred, greed and trashy sensationalistic television like Jerry Springer.
We could choose our moral battles wisely and get much more accomplished in this life. (Like someone here, perhaps, would offer to check my grammar and publicly ridicule me.) ;) hehehehe. :)

Franny1

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 04:49 pm Click here to edit this post

1st of all no child should be watching the live feeds, neice or not, they should be watching day time soaps (much more sex, extramarital affairs and scripted for thier enjoyment). Secondly this incident will be censored on T.V. so what is the big deal. This is young male behavior at it's best. These are three young immature guys, who are on their own for the first time in over 80 days and they are having a ball.
I wish everyone would stop trying to make them out to be abnormal.

Franny1

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 04:53 pm Click here to edit this post

Of course I'm sure I'll get flamed for the comment I just made. Some have already said that those of us who find nothing wrong with this behavior are (degenerates) the reason the world is so screwed up by promoting behavior unacceptable by todays societal standards.....Degenerate....I guess that would be me..

Lafatme

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 04:56 pm Click here to edit this post

if i could hang out nude 24/7 with kearie i would!

Bigbromo

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 04:58 pm Click here to edit this post

Anyone know where we can see pics of Josh and Eddie showing off their manhood?

Shayrainb

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 05:03 pm Click here to edit this post

He was just goofing off having fun.It was harmless...

Bigbrofan

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 05:29 pm Click here to edit this post

Josh did not flash children on purpose, if he did at all. First of all to make a statement like that there has to be intent. I HIGHLY doubt Josh was thinking "Hey I'm going to flash some children." That statement alone is a horrible one to make. There are plenty of parental warnings all over. Any parent that allows a child to use the internet unsupervised has no right to complain. My kids are too young, but even as teenagers will not use the internet without supervision. It's just asking for trouble. Josh had been drinking and was having fun. Maybe I've read too many posts that include diagnosis of depression, or alcoholism, and it's jaded me. I just think making a statement about someone flashing children, when there was clearly no intent, is wrong.

Kearie

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 05:37 pm Click here to edit this post

Laf-

Would you play twister too?

Rachel

Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 06:48 pm Click here to edit this post

Zyxokid, I am sure I'll be made to regret sticking my neck out here but I can't leave you all alone taking the heat for your feelings when I do understand what you mean.

Why is it sweet and adorable for Josh to drunkenly expose himself to half the world on the internet--even if it is to adults--when the local pervert would be arrested for doing the same thing in a parking lot from under a trench coat? I am not suggesting that Josh is a pervert but rather wondering about the inequity. I mean is it just that he's cute, or that we think we know him or what. What really differentiates the two acts? Just asking a question.....be gentle.