PhilMarlowe2

I agree that their support is sweet, but I do think Braunwyn and Sean take their support of their kids way overboard, and that it becomes more about them as parents than it is about what's good for the kids - I'm thinking here of the fact that they literally financed Rowan's fashion show last year and then lavished her with all this praise about what she had "accomplished." That seemed so unhealthy to me. How is Rowan going to learn the value of hard work and paying her dues if she has this unrealistic expectation that she is going to be rewarded with her dreams being handed to her simply because she managed to overcome some of her emotional issues? It seemed like a recipe for creating an entitled adult. It felt like a similar vibe with Jacob - like, yes, be supportive, but to hire a stylist and to wheel out the racks of designer clothes and to blast it all over international TV? It just felt like "too much." Braunwyn and Sean always feel like they have something to prove. Let your kids be kids.

I was so confused by this episode - initially thinking they were back to filming with precautions like a lot of the "Housewives" franchises, but then seeing how no precautions were being taken, and finally concluding that it must have been shot earlier when Nev and Kamie were back at their houses for the "2 months later" wrap-up...

This is such an insult to Kendall.

I feel like it's always the people who proclaim, "I don't lie!" that I immediately suspect of lying.

Can someone explain the meaning behind the brand name "Real for Real?" Real what for real what? Also, isn't it a little awkward to have a brand name and then also including, "By Shannon Storms Beador?" Shouldn't it just be one or the other? I don't think Bethenny's products say "Skinnygirl by Bethenny Frankel."

1 You don't have to explicitly say something to put that message forward. Given the rhetoric of the day, I think most people can recognize an implication even when something isn't explicitly stated. It seems intellectually dishonest to say "but I never said THOSE EXACT WORDS!" when the words you use put forward the same message. If you say that Candace shouldn't see herself as a victim and played a role in Monique's actions, it implies that she bears some responsibility for Monique's actions. That's actually not what I'm doing, and no matter how many times you project or infer a meaning onto my words, it doesn't change whether it's what I mean or not. I have literally said Monique alone bears responsibility for her own actions. I have said this multiple times. At this point, it's clear that many people in this thread are going to continue to hear what they want to hear, so there's no point in continuing this back-and-forth.

I admittedly found B kind of annoying and try-hard last season, but now I’m just mostly sympathetic. It may be an unpopular opinion, but I’m actually interested in seeing her journey to sobriety. I still find Braunwyn to be an annoying try-hard AND I'm also interested in her sober journey. I don't necessarily like her personality, but I'm glad she's on the show this season and I'm interested to see what she will bring to the mix. Count me in as someone who enjoyed the heck out of that scene of Emily and Gina. It looked like they were genuinely having fun! They did seem like they were genuinely having fun. I think there was just a shadow cast over the scene for me because Gina was so awful to Emily last year and, in typical Emily fashion, she seems so desperate for love that she has pretty much glazed right over it. Emily makes me uncomfortable because she's someone who talks a strong game behind people's backs, or she'll be very assertive on Twitter, but then she backs down in face-to-face confrontation, whether it's her friends or Shane. I'd enjoy her so much more if she were able to bring that spice to all of her interactions. I’m unclear why everyone is assuming Shannon’s new business venture is going to fail? Her food line did (maybe still does?) well on QVC. Whose to say this one won’t be successful as well. I don't assume her business venture will fail (I'm often shocked by how well some of the Housewives seems to do with their product lines), but I'm absolutely cringing for her that it's self-financed with her personal money. That seems like such a huge risk. But, then, as an entrepreneur myself, I'm a huge believer in the notion that you don't spend money on a business until you're making money in a business. Couldn't she find investors...?

On the one hand you say that Candace shouldn't act like a victim because what she said "made" Monique physically attack her by daring her to do so. Nope. I never said that. I never once said Candiace "made" Monique attack her. I simply said Candiace played a part in the escalating situation. That does not mean she "made" Monique attack her. Monique alone is responsible for her actions. If Candace hadn't said the magic words "drag me" would you then characterize her as a victim? Do you honestly think that Candace not saying the magic words would have changed Monique's response? How much of a difference do these magic words make? What if she had sarcastically said "hug me" instead, would Monique have been bound to hug her? The whole thing kinda reminds me of Beetlejuice. Candiace did more than say "drag me" - she also put hands on Monique. Yes, I know Monique touched Candiace's hair first, which is Monique's responsibility, but Candiace did then put her hands on Monique, all the while saying "Drag me." They were going in on each other, they were baiting each other, they touched each other, and then, yes, Monique took it too far. But Candiace was a part of the situation for sure. If this had been, say, the lake house argument - and they were simply sparring and Monique then lunged for her, then I would see Candiace as nothing but a victim - or if Candiace were walking away and Monique lunged at her, then I would see her as nothing but a victim - but for Candiace to claim to her therapist that she played no role in what happened is completely disingenuous to me. She was in the thick of it, she was heated as hell, she was using her hands and she was baiting for sure. It doesn't mean she "deserved" the attack, it doesn't mean she "made" Monique attack her, it doesn't mean Monique has an excuse for her actions - it simply means she played a role in what went down and if I were her, I would be deeply reflecting on how I played a role in what happened. Especially given her own history with outbursts and near-violence.

It's worked out for Lala and James Kennedy on "Vanderpump Rules." And Leah on RHoNY is now joining this crew. I for one am actually very interested to see people undertake sober journeys on this show - it's a nice contrast to the constant drinking which gets old fast, IMO.

"If you punch somebody in the face just because somebody says "You gonna punch me in the face?" you are no better than a trained dog. Just because someone says "are you gonna drag me?" does not mean that you in fact need to drag somebody." Right. Nowhere in my post did I say that Monique was right for attacking Candiace. Nowhere in my post did I say that Monique was justified in attacking Candiace. In fact, my post wasn't about Monique at all. My post was simply saying that Candiace played a role in the escalating situation. And I stand by my original point: I cannot imagine imploring someone to hit me and then acting like a victim when they hit me. And, yes, for the record, I also think Monique was entirely out of line for the way she behaved. By this analogy, if a woman says to a man "You gonna rape me?" then he should absolutely get to raping, right? No. I can't even begin to express the extent to which this feels like a total false equivalency. But mileage will vary. And, again, my post never once said Monique "should" have attacked Candiace or that Candiace deserved it. The problem is people are trying to equate Candiace's actions with Monique's (and wanting her to get the same consequences) or blaming Monique's actions on Candiace (it's Candiace's fault she got beat) and both premises are wrong. I actually think "the problem" (if there is one) is that people read the sentiment, "Candiace played a part in the escalating situation" and immediately assume that anyone suggesting this thinks Candiace deserved it, or that Monique was justified in her actions, neither of which are true (for me, at least).

That's a huge assumption and it's not true.

IIRC, Brandi Glanville did this very thing on RHoBH. She stopped drinking for a month to "prove" to everyone that she wasn't an alcoholic. Didn't prove much.

That is definitely not how Alcoholics Anonymous defines alcoholism. If you read "The Big Book," the official book of AA, it includes countless stories of alcoholics who managed to stay sober for long periods of time - only to then at some point take another drink and then spiral out of control. Leah from RHoNY has had a similar trajectory - she stopped drinking for something like 10 years of her own self-will, then started drinking right before shooting, and we saw how out of control she could get. She is now in AA recovery. So, yes, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, people with expert knowledge of the disease of alcoholism have made it very clear than many alcoholics do manage to go for long stints without drinking. There is also a term called "functional alcoholic" - someone who is very much able to hold their life together while still being addicted to alcohol. In other words, not every alcoholic is some drunk-out-of-their mind person who is poisoning her baby while pregnant.

I've also noticed myself liking these episodes a lot more than recent seasons and am wondering if the Zoom format has somehow unwittingly gotten them back to the grass roots of the show - less sensationalized Catfish couples that will trend and just more straight-forward stories.

Please stop saying, "I am not sure how you don't see that" - your view on things is not the unequivocal, unbreakable truth. People can view things differently. And yes, for me, it is absolutely a huge leap to say that because Candiace shares responsibility for the situation, that means she "deserves" what happened. It's like the Kenya/Porsha altercation. Kenya did not "deserve" to be attacked by Porsha. That said, Kenya was not blameless in the situation. She chose to provoke Porsha, she chose to use props in a provocative way, she chose to use inflammatory language. So, if Kenya sits down with her therapist, and her therapist asks her, "What was your part in this?" and Kenya replies, "I didn't play a part in it," Kenya is disowning some of her responsibility. Does it mean she deserved to be attacked? Of course not. But can she reflect on her own actions and the way she co-created a situation that led to the unfortunate outcome? Absolutely. It's the same thing with Candiace - she played into the escalation, she put her hands on Monique, she repeatedly asked to be dragged - none of this means she "deserved" to be attacked - but when her therapist asks about her part in the situation, and she says she doesn't have any, that is not taking responsibility for herself... Monique absolutely has no one to blame but herself for getting violent. And she needs to get clear with herself why she got violent. That does not absolve Candiace from also reflecting on her own action in the situation. And, IMO, any truly self-reflective person who has a commitment to personal empowerment (and not being a victim) always needs to be looking at the part they played in any given conflict between two adult peers of equal power. This includes me - there are situations in my life where I was treated unfairly. I did not "deserve" to be treated unfairly, but I also see where I made certain choices that put me in a position for the unfair treatment. And if a therapist were to ask me about my role, I would take ownership for those choices. It just seems like you are interpreting anyone saying, "Yeah, Candiace has some responsibility here" as "Candiace deserved it" or "Monique was justified in what she did," even when that's not what (some) people mean. It's not black-or-white. It's not either/or. It's not binary thinking. Multiple things can be true at once.

It's a big leap from "Candiace shares some of the blame for how the situation turned out" to "Candiace deserved to be assaulted." Absolutely not what I meant (nor do I believe it). What I and a lot of other people are saying is that, yes, Candiace absolutely played a part in escalating the situation and, no, Candiace did not deserve to be assaulted. Both things can be true at once. It is absolutely not semantics to differentiate between someone playing an active role in a situation and single-handedly blaming them for the entire situation/saying they deserved it. You can infer that all you want, but it's not what I meant and I never said it.

Blasphemy.

Because people have differences of opinion. And just because one person sees it one way does not make it universal truth. And, again, I never said Candiace was "to blame" for the situation. I said she is not entirely blameless. These are two very different statements. Nor did I rush to absolve Monique of the situation. It's not either/or for a lot of us. ...I am not sure why people don't understand that.

Right. Nowhere in my post did I say that Monique was justified in her actions, or that Candiace was to blame for the situation, or that Candiace deserved it. In fact, I clearly said otherwise. My basic point is simply that Candiace is not blameless in the situation, she did contribute to the escalating fight and that she therefore has some responsibility for the way things turned out. Or, to be more specific, my post was responding to the idea that Candiace was like someone whose phone got stolen from her unlocked car - which, to me, suggests more or less total innocence save for an absentminded lack of common sense. Candiace was not an oblivious innocent in this situation. She didn't deserve to be assaulted, but she also was not a passive victim.

When Max left Catfish, he said he would be back sometimes to help out. WE HAVE BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC ON LOCKDOWN - WHERE IS HE? What else is he doing right now? Isn't the time now for Max to be popping in for some episodes? I miss him.

That analogy doesn't feel appropriate to me, though, because your biggest crime is being absentminded. You're not actively participating in the situation at all. I am not excusing Monique here, but Candiace did play a part in escalating that argument - everything from wagging her fingers in Monique's face, to flipping Monique's shirt (after the hair toss) and saying, "You going to drag me?" repeatedly as she is flipping the shirt. That's contact. That's baiting. I for one cannot imagine looking someone in the eye and saying, "Punch me in the face!" and then turning around crying victim when said person punches me in the face. I guess if I were to use your analogy, it'd be like if you purposefully parked your car dangerously close to thief's car specifically to piss him off, let your car door bump into his car and then you said, "Do it! Steal my cell phone!" as you left the parking lot. Does it make it right for him to steal your phone? No. Did you play a very real part in the escalating situation? Hell, yes. I'll never see Candiace as a victim in this.

And it should be noted it was this tendency in Candiace that created the conflict with Monique in the first place - Candiace was outraged last season that Monique wouldn't side against Ashley with her. Basically, Candiace is in middle school and demands that every friend of hers has to take a stand against her enemies (even if said friend has no personal problem with said enemy). Her emotional immaturity is unreal.

While I don't agree with your timeline - I think Candiace seemed pretty triggered from the beginning - it's still on Candiace if she ends up getting to 10. At the end of the day, it was none of her business. If Ashley "flip flopping" on her own pregnancy gets Candiace so upset, she still needs to look inside to figure out why it got her so upset.

Is this the first time in the show's history that the catfishee and the real person being used in the photos ended up making a connection?

Though to be fair, she also let it go on for ten years. I get that it wasn't her preference, but it was still her choice to stay engaged in a "relationship" with a guy who refused to talk to her. In the words of Judge Judy, "you picked him!" In other words, it took two for them to be stuck in a 10-year limbo.