Any uncensored version of luxury competition?
zcar...@yahoo.com
Chaldean
<zcar...@yahoo.com> offered us these thoughts:
>Is there one out there?
Only if someone at CBS isn't interested in keeping his/her job.
Bob
cloud dreamer
Surely there is enough porn on the net...or does your mom have those
sites blocked?
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
CRB9000
@news.supernews.com:
> zcar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Is there one out there?
>>
>
>
> Surely there is enough porn on the net...or does your mom have those
> sites blocked?
She blocked them when he found the pics his dad posted on the net. But not
before she charged his credit card for the look.
PiOhPah
>Is there one out there?
Have you tried one of my favorite sites?
~~carl~~
often the camera techs lets a peek.
If SHOWTIME TOO...is uncensored..then one of those subscribers can fill
in the blanks.
What was shown and not shown?
Brian Smith
news:ors6d395djn1bmvfa...@4ax.com...
Do you find it a bit strange the competition had to involve nudity? What
purpose did it serve? I'm sure they could have run the competition with them
clothed and I doubt this helped to sell more feed subscriptions or improved
the TV ratings. As a point of interest, later that day Dani was talking to
Dick and she told him she was very upset that she had to be naked in front
of the production crew and even the other girls. She said she spent all
summer changing under the blankets, etc. to protect her privacy and then had
to bare all to compete in a competition. She told him she's very
conservative (I guess not too conservative to work at Hooters) and really
hated what she was forced to do. I wonder if having to do nudity was in
their contracts or if this just part of "at the producers discretion." It
would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Kail was
still in the house.
Brian
Chaldean
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> offered us these thoughts:
More than a little strange. I read somewhere out there "On the Net"
that Shapiro was the show's conscience, and I'm beginning to believe
the person was right. He wasn't high on my list of folks to respect,
but he's way above what we've got now. If it wasn't for the online
community, I'd have given up on the show by now. I've got several
seasons of BBAU and one BBUK to watch, and they're probably better
than anything BBUS has shown.
Bob
Chaldean
offered us these thoughts:
The comp wasn't during Showtime's hours.
Hunter
says...
> <Chaldean> wrote in message
> news:ors6d395djn1bmvfa...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:44:33 -0700, "zcar...@yahoo.com"
> > <zcar...@yahoo.com> offered us these thoughts:
> >
> >>Is there one out there?
> >
> > Only if someone at CBS isn't interested in keeping his/her job.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Do you find it a bit strange the competition had to involve nudity? What
> purpose did it serve? I'm sure they could have run the competition with them
> clothed and I doubt this helped to sell more feed subscriptions or improved
> the TV ratings. As a point of interest, later that day Dani was talking to
> Dick and she told him she was very upset that she had to be naked in front
> of the production crew and even the other girls. She said she spent all
> summer changing under the blankets, etc. to protect her privacy and then had
> to bare all to compete in a competition. She told him she's very
> conservative (I guess not too conservative to work at Hooters)
As the generations roll on that is a relative term. I consider myself a
conservative yet I like rock n' roll don't mind nudity and foul language
in the movies or on TV (just say no to drugs however). Why? Because I
grew up during the tail end of the sexual revolution. After all I was 15
in 1978, so I am not surprised at Daniele's statement nor find it very
contradictory. A conservative who came of age during the 1970s is going
to be different from one who came of age during the 1950's
>
> and really hated what she was forced to do.
That did put me off a little. As long as the nudity is voluntary, I don't
mind it at all (of course) but if is coerced in some way...
>
> I wonder if having to do nudity was in
> their contracts or if this just part of "at the producers discretion." It
> would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Kail was
> still in the house.
>
> Brian
I would like to see the contract they signed. The one on the BB site is
for just applying. To actually get on the show I am sure a longer more
elaborate one needs to be signed.
On the other hand it's amazing, other nation's version of BB including
Holland's and England's don't have a problem with this. Nudity? Hell,
they have had lesbian encounters in the hot tub including kissing and
caressing each other's breast. I think in either the Danish or Dutch
version of BB a contestant was either a porn star before or became one
after her stint on BB.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
L Covey
I wonder if Jen had any inkling that this competition was coming up.
Didn't want any part of it, and bailed out (last straw).
LC
Hunter
ljc...@worldnet.att.net says...
Nope, the contestants have no idea what is coming up. Further, I believe
she would had reveled in it like Amber did if she was there, her being
embarassed her top came off once in the pantry not withstanding.
noone
> <Chaldean> wrote in message
> news:ors6d395djn1bmvfa...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:44:33 -0700, "zcar...@yahoo.com"
>> <zcar...@yahoo.com> offered us these thoughts:
>>
>>> Is there one out there?
>> Only if someone at CBS isn't interested in keeping his/her job.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Do you find it a bit strange the competition had to involve nudity?
IIRC, they have had a similar competition in a past season.
>
Bigolhomo
That's pure bullshit. She got naked so she could get a shopping
spree. Nobody forced her to take her clothes off, she could have just
flat out refused to do it, as could any of them.
--
Bigolhomo
The Black Guardian
>>>> zcare...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Is there one out there?
>>>>>
>>>> Only if someone at CBS isn't interested in keeping his/her job.
>>>
>>> nudity? What purpose did it serve? I'm sure they could have run
>>> the competition with them clothed and I doubt this helped to
>>> sell more feed subscriptions or improved the TV ratings. As a
>>> point of interest, later that day Dani was talking to Dick and
>>> she told him she was very upset that she had to be naked in
>>> front of the production crew and even the other girls. She said
>>> she spent all summer changing under the blankets, etc. to
>>> protect her privacy and then had to bare all to compete in a
>>> competition. She told him she's very conservative (I guess not
>>> too conservative to work at Hooters) and really hated what she
>>> was forced to do. I wonder if having to do nudity was in their
>>> contracts or if this just part of "at the producers discretion."
>>> It would have been interesting to see what would have happened
>>> if Kail was still in the house.
>>
>> up. Didn't want any part of it, and bailed out (last straw).
>
> believe she would had reveled in it like Amber did if she was
> there, her being embarassed her top came off once in the pantry
> not withstanding.
Indeed.
I'm even skeptical about how truly embarrassed Jen was when she lost
her top. Sure, she covered herself up quickly, but she also needlessly
called attention to herself when it happened. If by some longshot
something like this happened to Kail (not that it ever could), she
would have been much quieter, instead of screaming for help and
standing there giggling about it.
Heck, I'm still not convinced that Jen didn't plan the whole thing.
Brian Smith
news:47m7d3d8vjcktgb9d...@4ax.com...
What makes you so sure she could have flat-out refused? I can't see them
having a competition where some of the players refused to participate. Also,
if she would have dropped out then others would have as well. As for the
clothes being the big incentive for her I don't buy that even though that is
what she said in the DR. She had no idea of how many clothes there would be,
how valuable they would be or how much she could grab in two minutes.
Brian
Unknown
at Hooters, she stole her friends fiance and then proceeded to have a
showmance with Nick. Hardly what I would call conservative values of
any decade.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:35:20 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cassie
and wasn't it Jessica's decision, as HoH, to divide the houseguests
into teams? what if she had put Dani and Dick on the same side???
Chaldean
offered us these thoughts:
>
>
>and wasn't it Jessica's decision, as HoH, to divide the houseguests
>into teams? what if she had put Dani and Dick on the same side???
It seems clear to me that the gender basis for the teams was a
directive from BB. TPTB just wanted to make it *seem* like it was
Jessica's choice during the lead-in. Had they had co-ed teams during
prime time, it would have been hard to chalk up the results to
wardrobe malfunction.
Bob
alooo
<Chaldean> wrote
> It seems clear to me that the gender basis for the teams was a
> directive from BB. TPTB just wanted to make it *seem* like it was
> Jessica's choice during the lead-in. Had they had co-ed teams during
> prime time, it would have been hard to chalk up the results to
> wardrobe malfunction.
If BB wanted them to divide by gender, why wouldn't they have just said so
like they do in other competitions?
Bigolhomo
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Easy. She goes into the suds, doesn't take off any of her clothes,
the guys win. If you're that scandalized about getting naked in
public, NOTHING is going to convince you to do it, not a luxury prize,
not the threat of being removed from the show.
And CBS isn't stupid. You really think they'd want the PR nightmare,
not to mention likely sexual harrassment lawsuit, of throwing somebody
off of their shows because they wouldn't get naked in front of the
entire cast and crew? Get real, wouldn't happen in a gazillion years.
--
Bigolhomo
Guardsman
c> and wasn't it Jessica's decision, as HoH, to divide the houseguests
c> into teams? what if she had put Dani and Dick on the same side???
Jessica said she was told that Daniele and Dick had to be on
different teams.
--
Chaldean
these thoughts:
I'm not sure, except TPTB don't seem very bright. To my eye, the goal
of the comp was to titillate the viewers with gratuitous {though
censored} nudity much more than to determine a winner. Part of the
titillation was surprise, so they didn't want the viewers to be
wondering why BB made that decision before the big moment.
But I don't see how they'd have left the choice to Jessica. It was
all too likely that she'd have made the sides JEDD vs the others. CBS
lost it's Tiffany status quite a while ago, but even it isn't tacky
enough to put a father-daughter nude scene on the air.
Bob
Brian Smith
Where did I say she would be thrown off the show? I just said it made no
sense for there to have to be nudity in that competition. If you think she
did it solely because she might have been able to get some clothes then you
are extremely naive. If that was her attitude she would be doing such things
in real life. Too bad we have no evidence at all that she is that type of
person.
Brian
Brian Smith
news:m3sl63a...@xanthu.home...
That's true and it probably also set off some alarm bells in her head.
Otherwise I'm sure she would have selected Eric to be on her team.
Brian
Hunter
Sydney of Astatula
> She blocked them when he found the pics his dad posted on the net. But
> not before she charged his credit card for the look.
>
You liked those pictures, didn't you?
Bigolhomo
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You asked me "what makes you so sure she could have flat out refused?"
What exactly do you think would happen if she couldn't have flat out
refused? That some interns were gonna bum rush her and rip her
clothes off?
How exactly do you think they'd enforce her not being able to flat out
refuse if not physically removing her clothes for her? If you don't
think they'd do that, then doesn't that mean she could flat out refuse
to take off her clothes and just deal with whatever penalty they want
to impose on her? There's really no in between.
--
Bigolhomo
Brian Smith
You must live in a really black & white world if you think their only option
to get her to do what they wanted was to physically remove her clothes.
Brian
Bigolhomo
And you're not answering my very simple question. I had said that she
could have refused to get naked, you asked me how I could be sure
about that. So you tell me, what are the circumstances where her
refusing to get naked isn't an option?
It is black and white. If she didn't want to get naked, she didn't
have to get naked. She got naked voluntarily, not because she had no
other choice. If they managed to coerce her into doing it, she was
still doing it voluntarily. There's no in bewtween, she either did it
by force or did it voluntarily.
--
Bigolhomo
Brian Smith
Since when is being coerced into doing something the same as doing it
voluntarily? That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard. There's a
huge difference.
Brian
noone
You didn't see the sniper in the bubbly knoll? :)
Bigolhomo
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You really are a fucking idiot. People are responsible for their own
actions. You could try to coerce me into dong something all you want,
but if I end up doing it it's because I chose to do it, not because
you made me do it.
Could I coerce you into fucking a dog? Into killin somebody? You can
only be coerced into doing things that you're willing to do. Which
makes it voluntary.
--
Bigolhomo
Bigolhomo
Lol. But then that brings us back to the issue of being forced to do
something against your will. Which Dani clearly wasn't.
Or are you talking about Dick's pee pee? I could see him nicknaming
it "the sniper".
--
Bigolhomo
PieOhPah
news:j2ibd317djus8jjht...@4ax.com:
You could be coerced into doing something if there were a gun put to yours
or a loved ones head. Just because you choose to do it to save yours or
someone elses life does not mean you were not coerced into doing it.
Otherwise the word 'coercion' would be non existant.
noone
> You really are a fucking idiot. People are responsible for their own
> actions. You could try to coerce me into dong something all you want,
> but if I end up doing it it's because I chose to do it, not because
> you made me do it.
>
> Could I coerce you into fucking a dog? Into killin somebody? You can
> only be coerced into doing things that you're willing to do. Which
> makes it voluntary.
>
Unless your name is Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. :)
Chaldean
offered us these thoughts:
>You could try to coerce me into dong something all you want,
>but if I end up doing it it's because I chose to do it, not because
>you made me do it.
This definition of coerce seems relevant. "2 : to compel to an act or
choice <was coerced into agreeing>"
I believe most people would agree that a choice is made under
coercion, but that choice is not reflective of the individual making
it. People are famously known to have a breaking point, beyond which
free will {that is, choice} no longer is an active or relevant or
meaningful matter. Where that point lies is relative to the
individual, the matter being coerced and the gestalt of circumstances.
Some people will die before reaching that point, others will not.
Bob
jackma...@yahoo.com
> "Guardsman" <sp...@net.invalid> wrote in message
>
Jack
Brian Smith
news:Xns999B8B0C08E1D...@198.186.190.176...
Well said. Coerce essentially means to force somebody to do something that
he or she does not want to do. How this is equivalent to volunteering to do
something is beyond me.
Brian
Bigolhomo
If there's a gun to your head you're being forced to do something.
The whole point I was trying to make is that Dani, and everybody else,
freely and willingly got naked in the backyard. They could have
refused to do it, they all chose to do it.
--
Bigolhomo
Bigolhomo
Fine, but in the context of this discussion that's really not
relevant. None of the houseguests are at the point where they've lost
free will.
--
Bigolhomo
Hunter
br...@whatever.com says...
Well, here is the definition of the root word "coerce".
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to
coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coercing
An example of coercion is to threaten to beat the living mess out of you.
To use your examples Could you coerce someone into having intercourse
with a dog? If the threat is only to be fired from your job no. If you
had pointed a gun to one's head perhaps. It all depends on the
alternative consequence of refusing. If someone threatened to kill a
child but not you if you didn't have sex with the dog? You are not being
physically threatened but someone else is. You call that voluntary if you
submit are you responsible for your own action in that case or is the
person holding the gun on the child is? I think the latter.
How about into killing someone? Yes, it has been don many times to
people. Kill someone or you be killed, someone you love or even just a
stranger would be killed if you don't kill X.
The level of coercion does depend on the person being coerced, if the
price is high enough. Like the guy made to have intercourse with a dog
with a gun to his head. He has to weigh having sex with the dog and
living to see his family again and not submitting and dying.
If we go by you strict definition of what is voluntary then we would have
fewer true rape victims since some aren't actually physically beaten but
the threat of beating or a gun or a knife is used, even a phantom gun or
knife that is never shown to the victim. Family members during the rape
of Nanjing in China during the mid 1930s were coerced into having
incestuous sex with each other on pain of death by the invading Japanese
at bayonet point. Perhaps they should had died with honor and refused
(many were killed anyway even after performing the act they were, yes,
coerced, to do) but I would hardly call it "voluntary."
It all depends what you are willing to loose. If people submitting to the
above examples are voluntary acts then we have a different understanding
on what the word "voluntary" means. To wit:
"Voluntary":
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMINING
3 : done by design or intention : INTENTIONAL <voluntary manslaughter>
4 : of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary
behavior>
5 : having power of free choice
6 : provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization>
7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration
or legal obligation
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/voluntary
Hunter
br...@whatever.com says...
That is true, so I do believe the word "coerce" in this context is not
accurate. You can probably argue she would had been pushed to chose
between getting naked and going for the prize and just sitting out and
losing out, but it still would had been a choice if a difficult one.
Having to make a difficult choice is not coercion.
Hunter
br...@whatever.com says...
Agreed.
>
> The whole point I was trying to make is that Dani, and everybody else,
> freely and willingly got naked in the backyard. They could have
> refused to do it, they all chose to do it.
Agreed. It is not as if they had to have sex with a dog or else. :-)
Hunter
says...
Now you are going a bit too far the tother way. Most of their followers
did have free choice, even if they where mistaken in their belief,
although some of Jim Jones followers where in a lot of cases coerced into
suicide and some were out and out murdered-especially the kids-because of
the presence and use of armed guards to kill anyone who tried to leave.
It was a virtual prison camp.
David Koresh his followers-except or the kids of course-voluntarily
stayed in the burning house and bus-bunker (although they did probably
falsely believe they would be shot down by the Federal Agents outside
with modified tanks and APCs).
Manson's followers were a near total choice if only brainwashed, at least
I think so. Did Manson threaten any members of his "family" of what he
would do if they left?
jackma...@yahoo.com
do
have free will, even if it means our lives.There or those who are
intergrity
keepers to the death and then there is the weak.How strong or weak is
determined by the person being tested. The exact words out of Dani
mouth was" I really didn't want to do it, but of course im not gonna
let
my team down and lots of clothing is at stake. What is a girl to do."
I'm not sure at this point we're not beating a dead mule, but my
final
point is they could of bowed out of that competition, since it had
little
to do with winning the game.
zcar...@yahoo.com
see your mom on some of those blocked sites...
On Aug 27, 8:02 pm, cloud dreamer <S...@Global.Warming> wrote:> Surely there is enough porn on the net...or does your mom have those
> sites blocked?
>
> ..
>
> --
>
> We must change the way we live,
> or the climate will do it for us.
zcar...@yahoo.com
On Aug 27, 8:25 pm, PiOhPah <dropd...@myfeet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:44:33 -0700, "zcare...@yahoo.com"
> <zcare...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >Is there one out there?
>
> Have you tried one of my favorite sites?
>
> http://www.lemonparty.org/