rab01
-
Posts
770 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by rab01
-
-
The "experts" really need to stop with the pairing a pretty'ish girl, with an average looking guy, that is the polar opposite of the girl's ideal type. I mean really, when they do that, it makes the women look shallow,superficial, and only into looks, and reinforces the stereotype that women are shallow and superficial. You don't see them matching a really hot, fit guy, with an average looking girl who carries a few extra pounds, or who is against their physical ideal. The "experts" seem to like to steer clear, of making men look like shallow, superficial, and only into looks, beings. Seriously though, every season there is a girl that goes "ugh, he is so not my type", and every season all the guys are like "whew thank god, they paired me someone pretty". Just one season, the "experts" need to reverse it, so there is one guy that is all "ugh, she is so not my type", to see what comes of it.
All of that said, I still think using drunk monkeys as matchmakers, would be an epic plot twist, for season 5.
I think it takes a special kind of stupid for a guy to say "ugh, she's not my type" while on TV. Guys already have the stereotype of being only attracted to women for their looks so leaning into that stereotype would leave a seriously bad impression on future dates. I'm sure the show can find some guys like that but I bet they ain't husband material.
-
1
-
-
No clue about the guy from the show.
One of my parents' oldest friends is an atheist who is technically a rabbi. You can earn that title by finishing a course of college or post-collegiate coursework called a Smicha. Technically, you don't have to have a congregation to be called "rabbi." That said, he would never introduce himself as Rabbi [smith] and is actually a lawyer.
-
1
-
-
Take David for example. He says he wants to find somebody he can eat pizza in bed with. ...
The trouble is finding somebody who genuinely wants that too, and that is the hard part. I have no clue what Ashley wants out of marriage but maybe on that intense battery of psychological tests these people are supposed to go through she said something like she wants a true partner who is there for her. ...
The other problem is what does David's quote mean to an expert reading dozens of applications? Because, you can also take someone writing about eating pizza in bed as being someone who is looking for comfort with a partner and being undemanding of your attention, rather than looking for passion and going on adventures together. I can see an outsider reading that line and thinking that Ashley would fit well with that request -- because she wants less attention, not more and fewer demands on her time, not making demands on his.
-
We had the same VCR. Around that time, we also got cable and it was controlled by a remote (also on a wire) about half the size of a toaster with a button to push for each of the channels ...
-
2
-
-
One benefit of monogamy is keeping the gene pool diverse. Of course, if the gender/ age distribution of survivor groups is skewed, inbreeding will be inevitable unless other groups can be found. Line marriage looks like it would accelerate the inbreeding process while improving child care.
It's actually the reverse. Line marriage would promote genetic diversity because you can't marry any of your brothers or sisters so you have to look farther afield for mates. *shrug* But who knows because I don't think it's ever been practiced outside the realms of fiction and theory.
-
1
-
-
David and Ashley should spend more time just socializing with other people and doing activities together. They need to go and do whatever passes for hobbies in Ashley-land and hang out with whomever she calls friends. It can be easier to mesh with someone in group settings than in one-on-ones. You can get self-conscious and in your head when doing fish-bowl kinds of crap. I get that they're both busy and production has certain boxes to check but their interactions are "work" when it's just the two of them.
From what they've shown us, Ashley seems to be one of those people that can interact in group settings at least a little bit. So, create more of those situations rather than staring contests and sex questions. (I've never bonded with a woman over the kinds of talks that they have them do here.) Plus, afterwards they'll have stuff to talk about and other couples' relationships to dissect from which they can segue to their own interpersonal stuff.
OK, none of that will help in the end because Ashley doesn't want a relationship with David and (probably) regrets having signed up for the show. But, at least the time will pass more pleasantly and they have a chance of developing enough of a rapport to become friends.
-
3
-
-
I have to disagree with this comment as a black male. Putting aside the effect that the bogus drug war had on black males employment opportunities, there are plenty of successful black males. Black females have the same amount of dating options as black males. I think what you are saying is black males are more open to dating outside of their race than black females are. I am not sure if this is true or not. I know one thing is true: regardless of one's race, the more successful you are, the better dating opportunities that you have. I agree with the rest of your post though.
I'm a white guy so I hesitate to chime in with my lack of experience but the published data says that your theory is true - black men are twice as likely to marry someone of another race than are black women. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/
-
I'd like something as simple as a cam left by the door of the stocked refrigerator wherever they are housed and interviews with people about fighting their temptations. Look, the situation they are in is unrealistic from a million different angles - and all of that is fine if it makes better TV - but I'd rather see them struggling with stress eating and hunger pangs than talking about being separated from their families, which I can get from literally any reality show.
-
1
-
-
Question for anyone who might know: Is it pronounced latKAHs or latKEYs? Wondering if it is like toMAYto or toMAHto or if Sam was right when she corrected Neil to say latKAH. I've heard it pronounced latKEY more than latKAH. Could it be regional? Either way, I love 'em!!
It's pronounced latKAH by most Jews, not latKEY. Although I'd say the second syllable is a little softer, closer to latKUH. Since it's spelled like it should be latKEY, that pronunciation is pretty common (Though since I went to a religious school, I can't remember hearing it that way very often.)
Vanessa certainly shouldn't criticize Tres' cooking. That's OUR job. Just like we are currently doing with Sam. (In defense of her grandmother, my own grandma was a great cook but made latkes from a box, rather than scratch. The two end up being very different and to this day I prefer the box version.)
ETA - tl, dr - what momof2boyz said ;)
-
1
-
-
I watched all this on fast forward last night so maybe I missed it (no I don't really think I did) but is there always so little discussion of how they are actually dieting and losing weight?
Speaking from personal experience, losing weight takes attention and routine and specific *work* and leaves you feeling hungry and frustrated and tired and .... I guess all I'm saying is that the people aren't all that interesting so why not show a bit more of the process they're being put through? Rather than having announcer guy screaming at me all the time with a voiceover of what I can see on-screen?
-
2
-
-
Ok, another subject - relationships.
Glenn and Maggie's "marriage", technically speaking, consisted of nothing more than a ring exchange.
During the throes of the ZA, I would expect informal pairings and common-law marriages to be the norm.
Assuming human society reached some form of stable survival plateau, however, would formal social relationships such as marriage be reinstated?
Or would they be discarded as anachronistic fripperies of a bygone era?
Some type of relationship that helps protect and raise children while also holding and transferring property makes sense to me so I think marriage in some form survives. But there is still an extremely high death rate in a post-ZA world and that could leave you with people being widowed and remarrying every few years. The best format I've read about for dealing with that is line marriage - a form of group marriage that continues over time by bringing in new husbands and new wives who share everyone's responsibility to raise all the children of the marriage.
-
1
-
-
The fault lines in the discussion we're having keep reminding me of bits from that article I mentioned above particularly this bit about the couple (Jennifer and Xavier) that were so like Ashley and David (I have to quote from it so as to avoid unconsciously plagiarizing her):
Virginie says frankly that her sense is that Jennifer just isn't attracted to Xavier; she asks if that's true. Jennifer stammers and dances around the question. Xavier interviews that he realized as they had this conversation that Jennifer wasn't "into this," and wasn't willing to give the experience much of a chance. He says that his patience "has some limits, and I think we've reached that limit." I have to say that I do take his side. Not because Jennifer won't make out with him, but because she's acted like she doesn't want to be there from the first minute they arrived. This is my big conflict, of course, because not wanting to be there is a sign of mental health if it's because the whole thing is so dumb, but the fact that she signed up in the first place sort of clouds the issue. I don't know whether to like the people who seem to have realized just how deeply creepy this is or the people who are willing to at least give it a chance and do what they said they were going to do.The way Ashley acts can make total sense in the real world and still be annoying in the context of having agreed to an arranged marriage that will be filmed for TV.
-
2
-
-
Meh, a person goes on this show to become a minor temporary celebrity so of course they're on twitter or else why go on the show? And, then some of the tweets are hostile and your responses generate more hostile replies. ... It makes total sense to break away, get some advice and come back to it fresh.
-
2
-
-
If that's the case, then it's infuriating that we never got to see that on the show. Unless she only did it when the cameras were not there. But, if that's what happened, then David is a lying liar for telling his friends he got no kisses.
It may just be a timing thing. They may have started kissing goodnight at week 5 or 6. Or it could be a context issue; that his friends meant something other than a "good night and go away" kiss.
-
1
-
-
But many women will take a little longer to make up their minds about a man. It isn't always yes/no right away the way it so often is for men. That's where "courtship" comes into play - being willing to patiently draw the woman out, rewarding the smallest response, and staying with her until she can decide whether she actually likes the man or not.
Like I said upthread, I'm here for the forum conversation, not these particular unfortunate couples. You've made some really interesting points that ring true to me except the implication in this one that it's a gendered expectation. Allowing the other person the time and space to come around to their own feelings about the relationship are important from both sides. Also, something about what you said made it sound goal-oriented and that is sort of ... skeevy. I know that's not what you meant but that's how it hit me. When someone likes a gesture you've made and responds do it with moderate warmth, that should NEVER be the cue to try to go immediately to burning passion. "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" is not a good look on anyone. (ETA - it's a particularly bad look on a man because if a woman goes to maximum emotional volume immediately, there is usually no element of potential physical danger for the man and the same cannot be said for a woman in the reverse situation.)
There are a zillion different cues that we all give off and read from others that go into dating and it sounds like David has not been reading them well. Now, those cues are tricky and you can turn someone off by showing too little interest just as easily as showing too much interest -- but, if someone doesn't want to hug you, you probably shouldn't expect them to love being tossed on a bed. To me, that kind of thing only works between people who are firmly friends (without benefits) or already attracted to each other. Near strangers sizing each other up for a relationship don't often react well to that.
Also, I don't know if this is the proper thread for it but this conversation has strongly reminded of Linda Holmes' articles about Married by America back before she was on NPR and just writing for TWOP. Anyone here who hasn't read them would probably enjoy it even if none of us really remember that precursor to this show. (ETA - honestly, the write-ups are hilarious and insightful plus there is one couple on that show that had the same dynamic as David and Ashley) http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/married-by-america/
-
1
-
-
I have absolutely no doubt that David was just joking around, but putting myself in her shoes, if a guy I wasn't attracted to had done that it would NOT have endeared him to me more. I agree that Ashley is giving 10% to David's 110% to this ~experiment~, but at this point why does David STILL need to be told point blank that she's not attracted to him? Deep down he knows it, and the fact that he does that kind of stuff anyway means that he either is a) in denial or b) letting his frustration be more important than her comfort level.
If I were him I would need her to say it out loud so that (1) I could write off the relationship permanently in my head, and (2) leave the relationship without either person having to feel guilt about its end. If it's left unstated, she can later blame me for something I did or didn't do. Also, within another 3 weeks, they have to make it official that they are not staying "married." It seems to me like everything should be on the table before announcing that to the camera. Sure, if this weren't an artificial situation with an artificial deadline, allowing her to just do a fade-away would be a much more normal resolution.
-
4
-
-
Thanks HumblePi, that explains a lot to me. It's only human nature to call someone out for perceived hypocrisy harder than their other flaws.
I figure that everyone who goes on shows like these is doing it primarily to be noticed, to be seen, to be semi-famous for at least a few weeks and to feel what it's like to be the center of attention. So, it's really strange to me that people would go on the show and then shut down and close off from the process (as everyone is saying about Ashley). If the whole point is to show people the version of yourself that you want them to see, why wouldn't you make a special effort to seem "game" and adopt the persona of someone who is willing to try new things? As a side note, a true introvert would never agree to go on this or similar shows so I would never believe anyone who claims that as a defense. (I was once walking through Union Square in Manhattan when I was approached by a production assistant asking if I wanted to go on a clothing makeover show and I said "no" with a quickness.*)
Because everyone on the show chose to be there, I don't think that Neill can really be the "pet rock" that he's made to seem. I bet that he's just been approaching this whole thing with two thoughts uppermost - 1) what should I do or say for the benefit of the person with whom I've been stuck, and 2) how will what I do look to the other people. I bet he just hasn't give himself time to think about his own preferences because, in the end, this is just 6 weeks.
* For those wondering just how terrible I must have looked, I was a man in my 20's back then, tallish, average build and wearing ordinary jeans and a t-shirt - I'm guessing/hoping they thought "blank slate"
-
5
-
-
This may sound strange but this one of a few shows on this site where I find the articles and forum entertaining but I can't watch the show for more than 2 minutes at a time so I have an honest question -- is that a picture of David and Ashley at the top of this article? If so, why is there a discussion of Ashley being prettier than David is handsome? Because to me they look well matched physically. I can understand him simply not being her type so she's just not into him but does she normally look better than that? Or is the photo hiding some issues with David? I'm not saying that she's ugly but he isn't either ...
-
4
-
-
The male trainer in the NY Post article linked above claims to have had a weight problem before becoming a trainer but I'm still going to give this show a miss.
-
I only caught the last part of the show so I missed Richard's departure. I don't think he had a chance to win the prize so it made sense for him to leave as soon as he stopped feeling it.
Is it weird that I feel bad for Dolvett whenever his team loses but that I would really rather have someone like Jenn is a trainer?
-
2
-
-
Eccleston is my favorite Doctor and I grew up on Tom Baker reruns. I've liked the others well enough (Tennant more than Smith and Capaldi whenever they keep that stupid guitar out of his hands) but I don't think the reboot would have worked without the "realism" for lack of a better word that Eccleston brought to it. Doctor Who has always been campy but, after being dormant for years, it was remembered more for terrible props than good story telling. Eccleston acted like he believed what he was saying and made the listener believe it too. I was hooked on NuWho from this speech forward:
Rose: Really though, Doctor. Tell me. Who are you?
The Doctor: Do you know like we were saying, about the earth revolving? It's like when you're a kid, the first time they tell you that the world is turning and you just can't quite believe it 'cause everything looks like it's standing still. I can feel it... the turn of the earth. The ground beneath our feet is spinning at a thousand miles an hour. The entire planet is hurtling around the sun at sixty seven thousand miles an hour. And I can feel it. We're falling through space, you and me, clinging to the skin of this tiny little world. And, if we let go...
[He releases her hand]
The Doctor: That's who I am. Now forget me, Rose Tyler. Go home.
It's a really tricky speech to pull off without sounding silly or pompous and he so nailed it that it's still to me the best description of who the Doctor is.
-
7
-
-
Don't recall that Niven story, but it seems pretty dumb of an alien race to threaten us with annihilation, unless we build huge laser canons to shoot them with...
Unless he wrote more than one with that premise, the aliens were traders with light sail ships. There was no conquest and no threatened conquest. It's just that if Earth wouldn't or couldn't build the laser cannons, the aliens had an emergency device that would have made the sun flare sufficiently to send them on the next leg of their journey. The by-product of the flare for us would have been lethal. (In the story the aliens were too polite to even threaten us, the downside of refusing was discovered by accident. It's a short story that's really just a joke.)
-
2
-
-
So, one of them will survive to join the cast but a bunch could reach the ground still alive. Based on how this show runs, they've been setting it up for WHUT to join the cast (and then, yuck, we can get a teen love triangle). BASICK, who really shouldn't shut other people's window shades but really should be listened to about zombies, would fill up too much of the cold-hearted space that Maddison has cornered so she ain't making it. (Sorry, Nashville and I agree she is kinda cute.)
It's hard to see how anyone would be closer than the wife or the stew for first bite so I'm intrigued by the question of who kills the zombie. I think it's boring if it's the air marshal who does it after getting bit (so that's probably what they end up doing, sigh). Maybe they give a hero's journey to WHUT or BASICK?
-
Historically speaking, that's not really that much of a change. In the U.S., for example, average male life expectancy didn't exceed 50 until the early/mid 1910s. It's only been within the past century that life past 50 became the norm vs. the exception,
We've all heard the term "Dark Ages" before ...
Barring intervention by either (a) a prepper-style Bank Of All Human Knowledge complete with tools for worldwide dissemination/training/execution, or (b) philanthropically-inclined aliens:
- The coming Age won't be Dark; it will be totally Black.
- It will last for years - decades, almost surely; centuries, maybe; millennia, possibly - perhaps forever, in terms of continued human participation on Planet Earth.
- Without the essential elements for support (power, raw materials, industrial manufacturing capacity, shipping, etc.) for an extended period of time, all technology will eventually fail. Sure, you can hook a generator to a windmill or water wheel and keep the lights going for a while - but what good will that generator be when your last light bulb burns out, or the motor burns up in your last power tool? At that point, the descent into barbarism truly begins.
In short (I know, I know, too late), how to create a modern-day Rosetta Stone - and just as importantly, ensure it is recognized as such?
Even in 1910, most people lived past 50 once you made it out of infancy. If you were 20, you could expect on average another 40 years of life. So, if the ZA stabilizes to the level of walled communities, you can have a decent portion of the community to pass on knowledge. That, however, doesn't change your basic point - can society "rebuild" or do they essentially have to start over and how to leave behind something to jump start the process.
It's an idea that Larry Niven played with in a SF book called The Mote in God's Eye. Part of the book includes
an alien race that is prone to periodic collapses of its civilization built museums as examples for the savages that survived the fall of civilization to discover.
They built museums in areas far away from cities with examples of the entire technology base from axeheads through fusion reactors and included books in various media. (I tagged who built the museums and why because it might be a little spoilery.)
If something like the ZA hit now, how far would the survivors fall before stabilizing and beginning to rebuild? We're going to keep arabic numerals so math will always be easier than it was for the Greeks and Romans. People will understand the concepts behind the iron age but will people be able to recognize iron ore in the ground? Will they need that skill with all of the discarded metal left over from the fall? How much herbal knowledge will they have? (Personally, I can't even tell edible and poisonous mushrooms apart so I'd be no help in rediscovering pharmacology.) One big advantage that they'd probably have is that every city has one or more large libraries and those libraries probably would not be looted. ... The biggest stumbling block might be lack of domesticated animals - how many horses, cattle and oxen survive the ZA? Farming is godawful hard work but imagine trying to do it purely on human labor ...
-
1
S03.E09: Making Memories
in Married At First Sight
If your first thought is "whoa, she's really not attractive", future dates might be on your mind, no? ;)
Also, if a guy thinks "Eh, not my type but let's give it a shot", he isn't going to say that on camera because when she hears it , she'll resent it forever. (Maybe some gross generalization there but I wouldn't risk it)