BigMamaThorton

Enter older middle-aged man stating, "It's good, and I like the way it smells..." ....because my mind went there.... I died.

Personally, I'm not basing my interpretation of Carole on what she does or doesn't do off camera, but rather more specifically what she has done on camera Early season Carole would have listened but not engaged in dishing the other cast members, and seemed to reserve her moments of vocal interpretations to her individual talking heads. Alternatively, in the most recent episode, she sits with Dorinda, and immediately instigates said dishing about a person she is moments from sharing a meal with. It's a glaring inconsistency in pattern of behavior, and somewhat in poor taste, and as you offer Luanne as a better example of duplicity, I would answer only that the single example I provide of Carole is all the more offensive because it would seem less so if the subject were Luanne. I don't know the woman, and whether I like her or not has little bearing as to her shifting, and declining IMO, sense of propriety. I'm making an observation, one which others are free to agree or disagree with. In effect, I believe it more obvious when Carole begins to display patterns of behavior that are par for the course if we are evaluating those patterns consistently associated alternative cast members, and I, personally, regard it as disappointing in as much as those same patterns are redundant in the others.

A moment to clarify.... When I provided the "Cool Girl" description in an earlier post it was to point out two things: First, To illustrate this idea that women often find themselves folding, spindling, and mutalating themselves into trite and simplistic boxes so as to enhance their appeal to persons they are attracted to; And, second, to suggest that doing so is not necessarily exclusive to sexual relationships, but also those involving friendships. My point as it relates to Carole is nothing to do with age appropriate behavior, clothing, etc., but to suggest that she is particularly susceptible to these emotional and behavioral contortions which I believe is evermore obvious this season with the introduction of both Adam and Bethany. To me, it appears she is suiting herself to appear more attractive to both persons, and to some extent, it is simply a continuation of that same tendency in seasons past with Heather. Flynn's published diatribe regarding the categories women force themselves into does nothing so much as suggest that each is willing to subvert their own inherent identity so as to appear more appealing, popular, wanted in both a sexual and friendship capacity, and from this perspective, I believe Carole provides a keen example. Furthermore, such behavioral calisthenics leave the object of such with the false assumption that they "know" someone, when in fact neither the performer, nor the chosen audience, are any the wiser the details of who this person really is, save somewhat malleable and ever changing to suit. So, when I ask where did Carole's identity go, I'm really asking who is this person, and have we never really seen her to begin with? I couldn't care less if she drops acid, rides handlebars, or dates infants...none of my business. But what I do care about is the suggestion that at our age who she is as a person remains susceptible to the influences of third parties, rather than forming as a consequence of time passing, lessons learned, and experiences reconciled. I expected her to be more grounded, more solid in foundation, which says more about me, and my expectations, than her, to be frank. FWIW, I do not subscribe to the idea that if one is strong and grounded, at peace with their identity and who they are, that they cannot run around in ass-less chaps, or date, or experience a carefree lifestyle. I believe it rather the goal, so when I'm presented with someone who presents in such a way, but who has not retained some measure of consistency as such, it rings all the more inauthentic and contrived. There's my 2 cents.

I can't help but remember Gillian Flynn's description of "The Cool Girl" in her novel Gone Girl when watching Carole of late. I should hasten to add that I'm often left wondering what happened to her identity? Perhaps the first few season's cool girl was the facade, and who she really is, these years later, is just now surfacing? Disappointing to find we as women are as susceptible as men these boxed categories and painfully astute cliches, no?

Now that I have some time..... LVP: I can't help but admire that this woman will not cave. In truth, I adore her all the more for it. If she is regarded as manipulative, guarded, cagey, calculating by those who feel victimized by same, then at what point does the adage "fool me once" not apply? Given that this is reality TV, and as such, presumes a simple understanding that drama is the point, I think it equally beneficial to understand that the format precludes simply accepting people as they are and dismissing their messy bits. IOW, there has to be some designated villain, and LVP remains the easiest and widely accepted choice because she, for all her supposed machinations, remains largely above the fray. I also believe the aforementioned characteristics go hand in hand with women who in no small part contribute to their own wealth and security, be it through business ventures, or carefully constructed associations with people of influence. The accusations of hardheadedness, frigidity, and yes, outright statements of "She's a certified bitch," in my estimation, say quite a bit more about the speaker, than the subject to which they refer. The suggestion that she criticized ED for her admissions regarding her past involving domestic violence is a small, and largely unfounded IMHO, example of such. Her admission to suffering for a time the same form of abuse was simply that; An admission which was not at all necessary, but which was provided as a means to say we have some measure of simpatico here, regardless of the nature in which it is acknowledged or presented. Between the two women, each chose their own way to deal with the past, and each should be allowed to do such without risk of judgements or blame. As it stands, the issue, that being domestic abuse, loses the agency it could have had as a means of empowerment for those who have suffered the same---Presently, its simply another "issue" in which the participants salivate over the opportunity to screech, "See! Do you see?! I was Right!" Far be it for me to suggest that life lessons are best learned through the avid viewing of reality television, but in certain cases I believe that examples of persons for whom similar circumstances have been overcome can lend itself to those in the viewing public currently experiencing the same might provide small measure of strength, or a glimmer of hope if they squint really hard, and tune out the superfluous, juvenile noise that often comes with it. In this, LVP, again, provides the best example in that she chose not to make it an issue defining her life, nor a niggling point from which she could not release herself, nor demean it as a means to gain sympathy or means to engender herself to anyone. It was something that happened, she prefers not to discuss or meditate on it; It was real and remains all the more authentic because she doesn't draw attention to it, bastardizing her past experience for personal gain presently. Yeah, I'm looking at you ED. Yolanda: Sister, if you want to stick capsules filled with every homeopathic pharmacy in the known universe up your clean shaven and bleached posterior that is certainly your right, as is posting selfies on every social media driven venue depicting yourself as a human pop tart. Whatever, and giddy'up. Social media cuts both ways, so with this in mind, might I suggest that, very much like a pop tart, you are less palatable without the frosting? I'll not engage in the arguments re: Lyme Disease, but I should think it obvious that leaking silicon implants, nee any artificially enhanced body augmentations involving substances not naturally found in the human body, might have something to do with your decline in health. And while you are sitting waiting for everyone to apologize for not being the friend to end all friendship searches far and wide, you might want to consider that each of those women avoided saying the most obvious to your face; That being, menopause combined with leaking silicon combined with what may or may not be Lyme Disease coupled with a level of narcissism matched only by Narscisis himself, and the arrogance in believing that it had to be something more, something unique, something worldly and deserving is why you were feeling rather poorly. Sadly, you are the same as the rest of us and subject to the insecurities, vanities, and fear of aging the rest of us attempt to reconcile everyday. In an odd twist, it was, in fact, LVP who attempted to broach the aforementioned, even going so far as to suggest that in her experience it was perfectly natural for hormones to go a bit wonky, etc., but no, you are YOLANDA, and not for you this base and common recitation on the problems of little people. Woe betide those who do not acknowledge that a kind word or show of support from this self appointed moderator as she decides for all who has a right to what feeling, what action, what thought, and genuflects with a whispered "Go with God, daughter of Eve." I see you, and you are one nasty piece. LR: To use the common vernacular, "Honey, you so thirsty you a parched and crusty desert." Save your side-eyeing and full throated accusations...even if I could find two fucks, I wouldn't waste them on you. ED: The phrase "Cutting one's nose off despite one's face" seems to apply. Your vocal defense of yourself, and by association LR, lost you the war, if such is the correct term for what you chose as your specific storyline. In effect, you've won little by way of ground or supporters outright, but can claim complete victory for those of us that simply acquiesce for want of silence and a definitive end. Here's a question: If all of the housewives agree, and the audience agree, and the twitterites agree, and your blog supporters agree---WHY IS THAT NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU! Again, you may not be as outright thirty as LR, but you are not far from it, and well done LVP for not handing you what you so desperately crave--Her attention in the form of demanded apologies. Fuck you twice you conniving, whining harpy. Kathryn: Girl, run! A life wherein you are not categorized as "a good fit" within the confines of this show is not without its considerable benefits. Just sayin' Erika: I see you. I see you all day. I see you try to affect an aura of dismissiveness, unattached, above the silly games these moneyed women play. Here's the thing, outside of Kathryn, you didn't have any fundamentally distasteful interactions with any of them. Yet, your distrust of LVP came across as immediate, as in, I'm just waiting for the opportunity to correlate actual interaction to gossip overheard or bestowed upon me by third parties. I'm looking at you, Yolanda. So, not really so dismissive, or unattached, or above the silly games these moneyed women play. No, not so much at all. In fact, being either the topic or cause of derision appears to be your default position, one which you have cultivated and tell yourself makes you the brightest bulb in the box, keenly aware of what others think and believe, ready for all comers, as it were. You're a smart cookie, to be sure. But, being such does not preclude that you are also vulnerable to being seen as just as manipulative and calculating as the rest, because really, I'm sure you just adore the Chief of Police, and not what it suggests in knowing him as a dear friend. P.S. If LVP had her own plane, or was in any way inclined to announce it in likewise gauche manner, she would be instrumental in maintaining its upkeep financially; She wouldn't, by that virtue, be reduced to borrowing it from her husband. I think you have this idea that being street smart invalidates instances of blatant stupidity, and allows you some added feature which enhances your ability to really see people for who they are, or bestows upon you some added admission the areas found behind the curtains. I come from a fair amount of street smarts and if I've learned anything its this: People will show the face they want you to see, and tell you the things they want you to know. Anything beyond that is guessing, and at best, self presumptions that you might know better. Its best, in these circumstances, to allow more rope, and if you are looking for someone from whom to learn that skill, best you cast your eyes away from the glowing sphincter that is Yolanda, and rest them on LVP, still standing and measurable untarnished. Or don't, your choice. But you can't cultivate an aura of glamorous, well turned out sexual being and not be reduced in some measure to not being regarded as more than such. I don't want to give the impression of slut shaming or the like, because it reduces me as much as the person of interest. But there is a difference between gorgeous and smart, and gorgeous and calculating. You've conquered calculating, perhaps now it would be best to attempt to address the higher calling of smart, is all. Kyle: I'm indifferent. Well.....Nope. Indifference.

Few quick thoughts.... Suggesting that LVP sharing what was obviously a difficult period of her life with anyone on camera is the same as electing to dismiss any/all opportunity to grow closer to ED is rather like suggesting that a philandering husband failing to notify his wife the circumstances of his, and by association her, acquisition of syphyllis was a deliberate and failed opportunity to grow closer as a couple. These fucking women. Here's the situation, sweet pea: Kyle knows, without benefit of cameras or expectation or manipulation, but by virtue of the trust and comaraderie developed between two people who have chosen to share their secrets. You, ED, are not included in that trust circle because your expectations are overreaching, myopic and your entitlement to such is neither earned nor warranted. I find it fantastically arrogant that you, and for that matter, all the other crones screeching their two cents, truly believe that a friendship with you, defined by you is worth any revelation which leaves the speaker vulnerable. Clearly, that circumstance is reserved for Kyle, and with Kyle is should remain however much time and energy each of you shrill harpies spend on spewing alternative perspectives and righteous indignation. Mortified? Really, LR & ED? I can only imagine how equally mortified you might find yourselves should you discover that neither of your spouses would be moved enough to defend you either way re: another cast member's interpretation of you, or names by which you have been identified. Be mortified by the face each adopts when forced into conversations with either of you as the loose translation of such is, "What the actual fuck is she talking about, and why am I expected to give two shits?" Erika--I see you, girl. Not having you for a nanosecond.

Which is "production speak" for One in possession of any single, or combination thereof, the following unfortunate character flaws; class, maturity, empathy and discretion. Girl, run.

2 cents: I think it's rather tragic that somewhere in her life Bethany learned that having an opinion and vocalizing it at every opportunity is in some way a measure of girl power or representative of strength in female agency. A more realistic understanding would include an objective evaluation of one's audience, which includes taking into account their feelings and emotional attachments prior to opening your gob and unleashing your seemingly unlimited caustic and scathing personal commentary. Girl, I see you, and the idea that you are independent and strong is appearing with frequency a delusion you've sold to yourself, leaving fewer and fewer wanting to buy. If you were strong, you would not have spent the better part of your own party avoiding particular guests while engaging with others. You say you are not afraid of confrontations to which I would agree. It's the idea of addressing conflicts as an adult which causes your knees to shake as they can happen without raised voices, accusations, and derailing one-upmanship maneuvers. Such is not in your wheelhouse. Had it been, you could have spoken with whomever at the outset, agreed to disagree, and endeavored to move on. Instead, you were the ever hovering poisonous hummingbird fliting from one ear to the next, seeking validation and furthering your message. Your expressed concern over Dorinda is exactly that, an expression which lacks action and forthright conviction. Expressions are easy, and, sadly, easy is an all too accessible choice in your wheelhouse. Strength comes from more than a passing familiarity in overcoming what is widely considered difficult, or obstacles, and outside of professionally, John is correct...you simply lack the emotional tools necessary to navigate beyond the superficial. Your damage is deeply entrenched, girlfriend. Don't fool yourself. And, for someone so deeply insecure as yourself, you might want to kindly shut the fuck up before someone sees the value in striping the self-appointed Empress of her clothes.

Longtime lurker, periodic poster..... Here's the thing....If someone has upset you, or "dismissed" you, or in any fashion folded, spindled and mutilated you, the onus is on you to bring it to their attention initially. The second conversation regarding such circumstances is rather a coming together after allowing the offender to take a moment to reflect on the issue. The third conversation re: same should/could be more of a "come to Jesus" wherein each participant takes responsibility, clarifies, yada yada, and ideally, in the case of adults, meet one another somewhere in the middle, a neutral understanding established, and then move on. Beyond that, any complaints make the person look more a harpy than a reasonable person seeking reasonable solutions. I'm looking at you, Rinna and Davison. Both of you would do well to shut the fuck up and sit all the way down. ED: Eileen's overreactions to everything is an apt real time representation of why so many successful silent film stars failed to make the transition to "talkies;" Nora Desmond called, she'd like her face back. Maybe Rinna could "google-ize" it for you. The problem is, you failed so spectacularly to clearly enunciate your feelings the first forty-seven times you voiced objections, that I do not have two fucks left now that you have managed it, to some extent, during a reunion. I. Do. Not. Care. Period. You strike me as that person who takes a picture of their food to send via social media, spends 10 minutes evaluating the responses and curtailing their comments to that of phonetic bumper stickers meant to convey depth, and then complains that their food was served cold. It's not enough that you regard LVP in one way or another; What you crave is validation or some measure of vindication and the extent to which you've broadcast this is quite beyond what a simple apology from LVP, or anyone else, would satisfy. IOW, if it doesn't happen on camera, you'll not be satisfied. Here's a tip: Having 40K "likes" validating your opinion does not establish either your opinion/actions/thoughts/beliefs as anymore valid or truthful than keeping your evaluations to yourself and being satisfied in determining that how you feel all by yourself, without need of audience or feedback, is a satisfactory conclusion. It's called internal dialogue-have Rinna help you out there, if need be. Also, please make the attempt to reconcile the deeply embedded issues you have regarding the circumstances surrounding your marriage to VVP because while you may tell yourself you've moved on, your actions bely your affirmation. Trust is a funny thing, even more curious that it is uttered from your mouth as relates another's latent untrustworthiness. If you truly held honesty up as the beacon by which we should all guide ourselves home, then I suggest you start by admitting this "thing" you have with LVP is more about you than her, thank you. LR: Um, yeah, I just can't with you. Except for this.....your face is so...The fillers.....It's a bad look, girl. And this: I am so indifferent to any alternative emotion save mild disgust re: you that when my husband literally jumped back from the screen when you appeared sans makeup in a baseball cap, I didn't lecture him about the objectification of women, and the aging double standards which never cease to rile me. Nope. Honestly, you lost me with the waxing....All I could think was this poor woman has so little dignity, and, yes, I will admit you were amusing to me once, in the vein of circus sideshow oddities which are in poor taste, skirt the periphery of cruelty, but are not without their uses. But trying to say that LVP was the diabolical fiend behind your mouth forming the words, and your fingers typing the letters, and your ears tuning in to gossip...yeah, that's an interesting interpretation of "owning it." Honestly, you have the morals of a puffer fish, and I'm truly sorry you don't acknowledge the quote bubble above your head which betrays your vacillating personal purchase price. Which is actually an insult to puffer fish as I imagine their integrity is fairly resolute, and have no need to rationalize their inherent poisonous nature as something more benevolent or otherwise generous. Rarely are they found pointing fins at one another, reading aloud from the marine life-Wiki definitions of Munchausen's, nor do they spend much time caring what each thinks of another, nor expend the time in gathering a posse, so to speak. Or find themselves in need of waxing----But if they did, I doubt they would invite the Japanese Koi waxer over to be filmed on national oceanic tv, attempt a thoroughly misguided jaunt into fake oriental accents, and call their husbands by their first and last name in case anyone was unclear about the spouse's identity, or the fact that their own personal relevance is primarily understood as an extension of said spouse, but tell themselves it's because it gives them character. It's star-fuckery, honey, and the fact that it's your husband tells me that even that man is not exempt from the machinations you engage in your quest for fame and relevancy. Brush everything under the rug, honey, but don't forget to keep reminding yourself how self aware you are because, "owning it" and self awareness are, in your superficial estimation, duplicate concepts.

Also, and perhaps really obvious….. Nicola Walker (Gillian) played Ruth Evershed and Jemma Jones (Muriel) played Connie on the BBC's SPOOKS/MI5. …..​i miss harry and ruth…….

So, they've killed off the only character I even gave a shit about in Jack. I'm firmly in the Carver Camp, and I don't care what his psychological damage is…I hope he hands them all a giant shit sandwich and forces them to eat. And, Beth? Just STFU you self-absorbed twat. The most annoying aspect that all these townsfolk share is this belief that each of them knows so much more than the other, each is so righteously indignant and preachy, one dimensional…..Jack was rather the exception, so I'll miss him and his three dimensional character. RIP Jack, full marks Nolte.

I got rather a Brad Pitt-esque vibe….. I'm disappointed that there will be no Patti LaBelle, Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson Lady Marmalade quartet a la Moulin Rouge. Dandy, baby, you want to Efferdent that new smile of yours.

Those historical moonshine routes would be useful to current drug running, no? I'm calling it. Helen's mother reminds me way too much of both my biological mother and my step-mother in their thoughts, motivations, and general attitude towards a woman's worth. I must admit to disliking her character the most on this show. And that delightful dinner gathering around the table hit way too close to home. As far as parents go, Helen's suck balls.

Well, the dress he chose, while being the lesser of color, was the more dramatically revealing in his version of events. It was rather as though he wanted her to be more revealing, sexually, by wearing the slinky dress versus the dress that was attractive, but sedate. IOW, he views her, and by extension, their marriage as once sexually appealing, but presently, for some time, attractively sedate. True, but it's not as though she said, "Hey, Allison, if I give you a grand will you dump this drink on that man over there?" Dehumanizing, in both word and action. Again, the emphasis on the "haves" not seeing the "have nots" was painfully obvious when she referred to her, blatantly, as "that girl who lost her baby." She is, for the moment, simply that girl and specifically not Allison; She's a cautionary tale told as dinner conversation, an anecdote to move the evening along, that girl who borrows a dress, is uncomfortable in it, and has it publicly adjusted, and criticized, she's an object to compare oneself against, allowing the comparer to remain superior. If she wasn't, the mother would not have suggested an action in exchange for financial recompense….she didn't ask one of her own to do it because while one of her own is likely more easily purchased in this world, it would be gauche to behave as such. Which suggests that one would only wait tables in those situations wherein they are in desperate need of additional income, thus eliminating the opportunity to willfully take a walk. Desperation is the key, and depending on whose perspective your looking at, need for extra cash and owning it (Noah) or need not to face whatever exists in her home, desperate for something else to do (Allison), bottom line is desperation. In a state of desperation, one can be purchased, made to feel purchased, and given how the scenes played out, that was exactly the point. Call it the 'Madonna/Whore" conundrum….that she appears, in Noah's version, to rather own her "whoredom," flaunting it even does not eliminate that overall feeling on being purchased, nor does it diminish the veracity of Allison's version. Each version contains "ownership" of another in some fashion, but her "lamb-to-slaughter" vs. his "empowerment through sexual blatancy," are simply their coloring outside their own individual lines so as to sell it to themselves. What I mean to say is Noah can't share Allison's version because that would make him a predator, he would have to acknowledge himself as such, an elitist who believes some folks are worth more than others, some are there to be used. Alternatively, Allison can't share Noah's version because she would have to acknowledge her own culpability, her own needs which lie deep, but are easily accessed so as to manipulate her immediate environment, and those within. It's all interesting enough for me to hang in there, regardless.

I agree with those who have suggested that there is no chemistry between the two characters embarking on an affair, but I rather think that is intended to highlight the isolation each character feels, an isolation whose basis is entirely different, and individual, from the other's. Both are seeking to "feel" something, perhaps anything, and recognize this need in the other, respond to this need in the other, but cannot define what it is, or where they are going, together or separately. Thing is, sadly, I really identified with Allison in ep.#2. The party scene captured perfectly, in my experience, that feeling of servant/prey vs. employer/predator. What I mean to say is that it is very hard, in those "serving" situations to avoid being made to feel somewhat a whore, on display, on the menu if you will, exactly what the father-in-law suggested, by the privileged attendees because, as Allison stated, they don't "see" you….as a person, but a fixture which completes their entitled picture of themselves. It's a rather sickening, and if you allow it, self-loathing opportunity, and it's hard not to let it get under your skin without coming away with the world belief that you are commodity in the end. I realize this all sounds so bitter, but that one scene really made the episode for me because I understood Allison. It was sad, really, but why I'm beginning to really like this show despite the lack of chemistry between the characters. Overall, I'm in till the end.