SHOgirl

What I find even more depressing is only discovering there is no sexual chemistry AFTER signing on the dotted line. Wishing the "skank" lots of fun and pleasure and a minimum of slut shaming. Having said that, I've never watched that show our anything similar. I just think, from a sex positive standpoint, she should be able to do whatever makes her happy. Even if it makes the scolds cringe or name call.

Who are you talking about?

Who is Juan Peron and Mrs Peel?

Hi RedheadZombie! I've noticed before that we are neighbors. I think we post on some of the same shows, maybe Walking Dead too?

I agree with your description of Mike as "decent." I'm not a flag-waving Jesus freak myself but living in Georgia, I'm familiar with the species. He may have an insane work ethic that he expects others to emulate, he may have wavered on the occasional strategic act, but I do believe that Mike is a kind and empathetic man. And I will never root against that.

I'm happy the flag-waving Jesus-pimping white guy won!

Wow. Perception is everything. My mother and several friends were adopted and all are/were happy, well adjusted and grateful to have been adopted.

If any of you watch Bob's Burgers, Dan at the immunity challenge reminded me of Jimmy Pesto playing Burgerboss while mumbling inappropriately and sexually. He was really really creeping me out.

I know! We all know the true victims are ones who've been victimized by being adopted into loving homes. My heart weeps for those poor souls.

Go Mike! Since few have won Survivor while not lying or being sneaky, and even fewer have won while being "genuine jackasses," I hope Mike lies and sneaks his way to a cool million.

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys (with proper credit for quote to Willie the Groundskeeper).

I love all the very insightful commentary regarding this show. I do wonder, however, how much a poster's life experience informs the commentary. It's just interesting that it appears that poster's assumptions are being analyzed as fact. Maybe this thread needs a counselor on-site to help address any issues the subject matter causes to surface in us. Mostly kidding.

We are also on the east coast in Georgia because geography.

Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, nothing!

I've been in horse rescue for many years and a lot of the horses that need rescuing are scared and, therefore, dangerous. A horse's primary motivation is not food, but feeling safe. A horse is a prey animal, unlike dogs and cats, so their behavior when threatened is completely different. And horses are easily conditioned for the most part. So despite how it appeared, if the horse had felt insecure in any way, he would've kicked his way out of there and ran away. I can definitely say that was a very talented and well trained animal. If he had been scared, that entire scene would have been completely different. Buttons-5 walkers-0. Which would have been all kinds of awesome on the show but awful for the poor walker actors. Haha.

I have to tread very carefully here so I don't seem like a rape apologist, but in my day, women had a way of letting a man know what she wanted without offering him a signed contract that it was ok to kiss her, a very subtle dance of attraction and welcome intimacy. Therefore, while I do believe Rick wanted to put "his paws"on Jessie, I also believe that, more importantly, Jessie wanted him to put his "paws" on her. A distinction which would indicate that Rick is not a paternalistic asshole who thinks he can kiss on the cheek/grope every woman he meets, but is instead a man who can read the signals Jessie was sending him loud and clear.

Beth was clearly a rapist.

It's always fascinating to me how different people can see the exact same thing and interpret it so differently. While my personality admittedly does not lean toward the overly dramatic, I have a hard time seeing how anything that occurred could be construed as Rick nearly killing someone's husband. Not that Rick isn't going off the rails; that's entirely possible. But I've grown accustomed to very poor writing on this great show. I've noticed that, in scenes past, we offer a variety of possible explanations only to learn from TD that the intent was to convey some completely different thing not one of us even conceived of. I do wonder why this show has its hooks in me so deep. Maybe I'm waiting (hoping?) for new writers in the hopes that the show might, one day, live up to its potential.

I work in horse rescue and the most vicious thing I've ever seen in person was a horse savaging a rescuer. Neither survived. And one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen was complete strangers working together to save victims of a violent car crash. There are savage animals and there are good and moral people. I'm grateful to my life experience for showing me that nothing is all or nothing and very sorry for those who haven't learned that.

We were down there in November, I think, and the wall was right outside downtown Senoia. We were there for something else and didn't really investigate, though.

In that case, I'm out.

Pretty much every forum I read mentions something that happened on Buffy. I may be years behind on pop culture, but surely I'm not the only one who hasn't seen Buffy yet. Are we really allowed to spoil other shows in these forums?

If you were responding to my post, I did not intend to offer the impression that I don't think Noah cares for his kids. I was simply stating that attacking Scotty does not necessarily prove that. Reading back, I can see how one would get that impression. Nor do I think if a person has an affair, it proves they don't care for their kids. My husband and I have an active, ahem, life (what we call the secret lives of adults) and neither of our assignations has anything to do with the great love and care we both feel for our children. In fact, when boredom set in, we both decided it was better for our marriage and family to assuage that boredom while simultaneously respecting the union and what it means to us and others. Clearly, I'm not in the "all cheaters suck and must die, there is never any excuse..." faction. Without our outside activities, our marriage would have gone the way of Noah and Helen's and the countless other marriages that don't survive infidelity a long time ago. We decided to make our needs work for us and the marriage instead of taking it all so damn personally. Haha. Of course, unlike Helen and Noah and Allison and Cole, we really dig each other.

Does attacking Scotty really prove that Noah cares about his kids? Perhaps my own experiences are coming into play, but I find that some men (whether fathers, brothers, pastors or boyfriends/husbands) often view the sexuality of any woman in their lives as belonging to them and being theirs to regulate and control. Whitney is practically grown, a few more months months and it wouldn't have even been a crime. In that case, I suspect Noah would have still attacked Scotty.

That is perfectly understandable to me. As I used to tell people who questioned my behavior when the man I loved was unavailable (he had died), "love is love but a girl still needs to get laid." My life was falling apart and this aspect, I could control and enjoy. Some people are willing to indulge that biological imperative more than others, even when others standing in judgment find it distasteful.