Hmmm, Ganesh, I'm afraid I have to take issue with your 'smug-het' comment there. I thought the reason why the first smug-het group were labelled thusly was because a) they coupled up at the first opportunity b) would spend all night snogging on the live feed and c) were confident that their sexuality and attractiveness would see them safe from evictions.
I'm not sure that I specified a), b) and c) the first time I coined the term. I recall it was about assembling a core power-bloc via heterosexual pair-bonding then 'allowing' others (heterosexual singles) to associate with that core group. I don't thi-i-ink I specified "at the first opportunity", "snogging on the live feed" or perceived confidence as defining features.
So I'm not quite sure where you're getting all that from.
I don't see this at all in the group that you specify. So, unless you want to explain yourself fully, could you knock it on the head a bit?
Could you knock yourself on the head a bit? Or shall I explain myself fully?
My "harping on" would, in this instance, appear to consist of a single comment - unless you're counting my earlier "harping on", which I thought I'd fully explained at the time. That comment was
... is anyone else faintly depressed to see the White Queen and Saint Pete making up a new Team SmugHet, along with Imogen, Mikey and Glyn?
You're perfectly correct to state that these individuals have not (yet) coupled up. Imogen and Mikey, possibly. Pete is, as we know, asexual. Aisleyne's heterosexual but not especially smug. Glyn is heterosexual and, IMHO, starting to accelerate up the Smug Curve with alarming speed.
But no, essentially this power-bloc is different from the last power-bloc in that coupledom is not a prerequisite for the core group (unless we decide the increasingly-coupley Imogen and Mikey are the core group). When I said "making up a new Team SmugHet", I don't think I meant this as "an identical Team SmugHet to the last one, fulfilling John the Exploding Boy's a), b), c) criteria". I meant to emphasise possible similarities to the last large, heterosexual power-bloc in the House. And there are similarities.
I don't think it's really necessary to keep harping on about the sexuality of the housemates. I mean, call 'em "the straights" or something if you must define them by sexuality, but I don't see where the smugness come into it.
I'm sure you don't think it's "necessary". Big Brother isn't "necessary". Typing a post on the Internet isn't "necessary".
More pertinent (than your essentially meaningless use of "necessary") would be whether the sexuality of the individuals concerned is relevant - and I think it is. I'm well aware that it's generally unusual to comment on people being heterosexual/straight - it's just the default, innit? normality? - but I don't think the sexualities of those concerned are merely 'background'. I think they're a huge factor in the House, pivotal to the way power-blocs form and dissolve. I'm not 'defining' people solely by their sexualities, but in the case of Big Brother, I think sexuality is an enormous factor in how the House behaves.
You may well disagree, but I think you'd be wrong. I'm not sure that I'd feel sufficiently entitled to demand that you "explain yourself fully" or claim you were "harping on".
(ps, I don't want to start a war here, I just needed to say that)
It was "necessary" for you to say that, was it? You didn't just want to?
This reminds me of the problems with the Het 101 thread. We're unused to heterosexuality being interrogated - or even commented upon as in any way relevant to anything. It's the normal by which abnormal is measured, the statistical mean.
I'm terribly worried now that if, in using the phrase "Team SmugHet" once in howevermanypagesit'sbeen, I'm "harping on", responding to you at length really does constitute a "war". Shall I just shut up? |
