Complexity

There is a psychological reason to explain why people will sometimes throw stones at other people. It's normally used to blame someone's situation by suggesting that they did something to cause it. One of the most common examples is where people blame a woman for being raped because of her behavior (e.g., alone at a bar late at night, walking alone in a bad area of town, was a prostitute). The reason behind this is for self-protection. If the other person somehow caused their situation, then that means she had control over it. And if that person had control over it, that means we have control over the same thing happening to us. However, if the other person had no control over the situation, if the situation was completely random, then we are vulnerable to the same thing. We must find something to separate ourselves from the other person to explain why that other person is to blame for their situation and how we can avoid it. We must have control in order to protect ourselves; therefore, the other person must also have control so their situation is their fault. They are to blame. Or as Psychology Today (not necessarily the best source, but one that's easy to read and understand) puts it: Victim blaming is not just about avoiding culpability—it's also about avoiding vulnerability. The more innocent a victim, the more threatening they are. Victims threaten our sense that the world is a safe and moral place, where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. When bad things happen to good people, it implies that no one is safe, that no matter how good we are, we too could be vulnerable. The idea that misfortune can be random, striking anyone at any time, is a terrifying thought, and yet we are faced every day with evidence that it may be true. Source So when we see someone throwing stones at another person, keep in mind that they are likely just unknowingly trying to protect themselves. It's not so much that they think they're better than the other person. It's more likely they are trying to say it won't happen to them. Is Whitney a victim? Yes and no. She does have a medical condition which is beyond her control that affects her weight. However, she does has control over how she responds to that medical condition. She may have a psychological condition that affects her behavior; however, she also has the ability to seek help for any possible psychological condition she may have. So she is partly to blame. The question is whether we can see the part of her that is a human being trying to make her way in this world or do we cast her off as subhuman and undeserving of any understanding or compassion. Interestingly, we have control over that.

I don't think Abby ever looked good (pigtails on a professional working woman, really?). I've actually grown fond of Garcia's eccentricities. Sometimes they overdo it, but she's not that odd in her choices. She just prefers bright matching colors and large, frilly designs. Although, I must admit that I always question just how she supposedly gets so many different frames for prescription glasses.

He was 80 lbs at the age of 5 (that's around twice the size of the average 5 year old). The show last night had a popup that said he was too large to find a suit or tuxedo to wear for his wedding. So he was definitely obese all his life and when he got married. I think that makes it even harder for a person to lose weight and keep it off. He has been eating poorly his entire life so his new eating habits are completely foreign to him. Yet, he clearly wants to be a productive person and handle his responsibilities as a husband and father. I applaud his success. It is definitely the result of his own internal motivation. I'll take that kind of person being repetitive any day over the non-stop excuses repeated by others on the show.

So, basically, he is a Richard Simmons wannabe who's using Whitney for publicity. I guess only time will tell if he succeeds. BTW, Richard Simmons went into hiding because of the fame (as I understand it). Fame is not all it seems. It is very hard on people. I personally would not wish fame on even my worst enemy.

They probably asked someone to care for the cat while they were on the road trip. It would have been very hard to take the cat with them.

??? Wow, that's a shocker! I was not at all expecting anything like that! ???

Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks. Usually, the sexual advances in a porn film are wanted. Therefore, no sexual harassment occurred. Moreover, the porn stars are acting. Whether they are a method actor or not is up for grabs. ?

If an act of sexual harassment is not real, but only an act, then there are no laws broken... Similarly to how Freddie (Norman on Bates Motel) won't be charged with murdering anyone because it was just an act, not real. However if actual sexual harassment occurred, no contract can make anyone above the law just as no contract can allow someone to get away with actual murder just because it was somehow put into a contract. No contract can nullify a law. So the question is whether the sexual harassment was real or pretend.

I don't think they can legally do that. Sexual harassment is a federal law. A measly TLC contract cannot nullify that law.

I went back and looked at that, and you're right. They were all wearing the same clothes when they packed up the apartment, began their "vacation" in the truck, and then were close to the end of that "vacation." It was clear the video was filmed on the same day. I think it was because of TLC being either lazy or cheap. They didn't want to send a crew out on the road to get video of them in the truck on different days. Maybe they figured one scene of them all sitting in a truck was just as good as the next one. I don't think the whole "vacation" was a hoax though. I think they really did pack up their apartment, spent the summer on the road in the truck, and then got a new apartment at the end. I believe the voice over is accurate. It's just TLC's fault for not getting video for those events. Having said that, it does put into question how well the kids enjoyed living on the road in a truck for the entire summer. We see them appearing happy, but that video was taken when they first started out on the road. They may have been happy the first 10-30 minutes of the trucking with dad idea. That doesn't mean they stayed happy about the trip in general. Perhaps the kids did enjoy it? Perhaps they got tired of living in a box for so long? I don't think we can know for sure. Nevertheless, the family did what they needed to do for the family's sake. I would think saving two months on rent helped out when Chad couldn't work after his surgery. It's definitely not what I would want for my family, but if it worked for their family, then more power to them.

And she wonders why they didn't rush to give her a job. ? It would do her some good to stop focusing on herself and actually pay attention to others around her. She appears to have no awareness that she's making a complete fool of herself.

I guess I saw it differently. I didn't see his tantrum as good acting. It looked poorly done and unbelievable to me. Of course, I have no way of knowing for sure. If it was real, then his behavior made him out to be a bigger looser than he feared the show was doing.

Oh, you could never hurt my feelings. I will love you forever.... ? Emojis are from my computer. It's a Mac. It has a little popup with all the possible letters/emojis available, and I just have to click on one (it's in my favorites). I also have shortcuts to some (so typing : and ) together gives me ? automatically). Um... well... I did some computer programming in my younger years so that kinda helps a little.

LOL!! I think you've channeled your inner Norma. ?

That whole Buddy scene was nothing more than fake drama. Buddy was trying to act. ETA: I'm not saying there isn't something going on between Buddy and Whitney regarding the rent, but that Buddy's on camera "temper tantrum" was faked for the cameras.

Yes, he is dead. There is nothing anyone can do to improve on what's already been done. No need to mess up a great ending. ?

I think Babs would prefer to keep her medical issues to herself. If she attempted to advocate for stroke education and prevention, it would bring up things such as what Babs could/should have done to better care for herself (justified or not). We already know Whitney's fans can be mean spirited (which is normal for this type of show due to the fake drama they intentionally create). Babs may prefer to not subject herself to that scrutiny. I don't blame her if that's her preference. Moreover, this is the "fat fabulous life" of Whitney, not the "here's how to be more healthy" show. The instant Whit even begins to talk about Babs' health, she will be required to face her own health issues. Talking about Buddy's finances is much more Whitney's speed.

Yes. Her former name was Matthew.

Maybe she's getting a PhD in twerking? Or Twitting?

Although I already expected this, I would have preferred that it not be said... as if I believed the "fingers crossed" comment would somehow maintain the suspense.

Okay, I looked through the DSM-1 and found no reference to multiple personalities at all. Therefore, DID (by any name) was not documented as a psychiatric disorder at the time which means Gein could not possibly be given that as a diagnosis. The DSM-1 is online for anyone who wants to look at it: DSM-1 (pdf)

I honestly don't know offhand. I don't remember Gein ever being diagnosed with DID. I think I would have remembered that. There are a number of disorders under the schizophrenic spectrum, and my first guess would be that he would have been diagnosed with one of those disorders. I have a copy of the DSM-1 which was published in 1952. I'll look through it to see if DID was in there in one form or another.

I noticed the same thing. The signatures are very strangely similar. But as you said, they would have had to sign them with a lending officer so they must be genuine signatures. Still, it's creepily uncanny how similar they are.

He still has memories.

And she has no respect for her friends, her coworkers, or for her own self.