StatisticalOutlier
-
Posts
5.9k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by StatisticalOutlier
-
-
1 hour ago, Auntie Anxiety said:
I think this is why older widowers are so quick to remarry. They want someone to take care of their daily needs, much cheaper than hiring help, and there are plenty of widows who are desperate to find a new husband.
I'm at an age where everybody's parents are dying, and I've noticed widowers tend to die not too long after their wives die, but widows can go on for years and years. I'm sure some of it has to do with the fact that in general, men are older than women in marriages, but I think there's more.
I think women whose husbands die, especially women in what is now the oldest generation we have, can be suddenly placed in a position of power they didn't have before. In that cohort, it was often the husband who handled the family finances, and when he dies, suddenly the widow is in the position of making decisions about important matters like finances and investing, and it can be empowering. She's deciding what car to buy. She's making all sorts of important decisions, and that can contribute to vitality.
Men in that cohort, when their wives die, have to learn how to do their laundry and run the dishwasher and do real grocery shopping (not just picking up an item on the way home), and I suspect most of them don't find that empowering, or even interesting.
I do think we're on the tail end of this, now that so many more women work outside the home. Or I hope so, anyway. Although now that I think about it, it might just mean that women start dying earlier, like the men do.
1 hour ago, Empress1 said:Me too. And on top of that he has three cats? Hard no for me.
He said he has three cats many times, but I think I heard him say at one point that he had two cats and got a roommate with one cat. Is the roommate still living there, so he'll be bringing "only" two cats to the marriage? Did the roommate move and leave the cat?
1 hour ago, Cramps said:On the casting special, the “experts” made it sound like [Lindsey] was on the caretaking side of medicine and could help with Mark’s mother. But then when they told her she was getting married, she appeared to be the only one working in a jewelry shop.
I don't remember all the details, but I definitely remember the experts saying her caregiving skills will be helpful to Mark, and it turns out she's some sort of Covid coordinator?
Also, now I'm confused about the difference between "caregiving" and "caretaking." Sounds like they should be the opposite, but I think they mean the same thing?
-
2
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Elizzikra said:
It sounded to me like her disabilities are more mental and emotional than physical? For some reason, I also had a feeling she might have an alcohol problem though I don't know why I thought that.
Well, he did say repeatedly that she's "in rehab." But he said (or at least implied) that it was for her legs, although he did say that she makes bad decisions, which doesn't sound like a leg issue.
13 hours ago, Crashcourse said:Mark can't help it but he's got crazy serial killer blue eyes.
Those eyes, combined with absolutely no chin? I find him aggressively unattractive. Some of the shots of him in profile were very unfortunate. I'm not a fan of beards, but he needs to try on Mike's, the one that juts out, to see if that can help balance out the lower half of his face.
Actually, I find all of the guys this season to be unattractive.
13 hours ago, Straycat80 said:Oh no, Lyndsey, the top on the dress is so wrong, see thru with breast feeding pads showing through.
Thank god it looks like that was just for the try-on dress, because that was AWFUL. But at the wedding, it looked fine. I actually wonder what it DID have instead of the breast feeding pads, because did they have time to professionally line the bodice? Lindsey did say on the after-show that yeah, she pulled her dress down to fish out her vows, but she had pasties on, so no big deal. Is it possible she just used pasties and didn't have it lined?
12 hours ago, Straycat80 said:Why are there half naked dancers at the mens party and the women have drag queens? Where are the sexy male dancers?
25 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:(wow, was I skeeved out by the strip club scenes-I guess some men just love half-naked women no matter what they look like).
Y'all need to work on your math.
2 minutes ago, Retired at last said:I thought last year when Gil and Myrla had murdered fathers in common was pretty awful. It sounds like this season they have raised the bar again.
Well, except they're getting the "in common" thing wrong. I can't remember which couple, but the girl's father was incarcerated since she was a baby, and the guy's father died when he was a kid (am I getting this right?), and Cal said they had being raised by single mothers in common. Well, technically, yes, but...
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, gingerandcloves said:
Also, there were two couples who successfully obtained annulments, both from the D.C. season - Meka and Michael, and Taylor and Brandon.
I'd forgotten which couple it was. The thing is, Michael, the one who lied about absolutely everything even in situations where he was bound to get caught (not only lying about being a yoga instructor but having Meka show up at the studio for a class!) is the one who filed for an annulment based on fraud.
Meka posted some long account of the hearing they had (done remotely because of Covid), but as far as I know there's no official record, like a transcript. From her account, it was a real mess.
What I remember her saying is that Michael's lawyer was throwing all sorts of stuff around, including that Meka had changed her name (which was true, but not done for purposes of fraud) and maybe she was running from the law or something. The lawyer was also alleging fraud on the part of show, but didn't present any evidence other than Michael was recruited for the show and didn't understand what he was getting into (which isn't fraud), and the claim that the show matched them for drama instead of marriage, which would be REALLY hard to prove, and even if they did match them for drama, is that actually fraud? But nobody from the show was there anyway, to testify one way or the other, so that can't (or shouldn't) have entered into the judge's decision.
I recall that the judge asked Meka about her intentions with respect to the marriage and she said she wanted to be married.
The judge asked Meka if she wanted an annulment and she said she didn't care if it was an annulment or a divorce, she just wanted out. And the judge granted the annulment.
That's what got me thinking about the process of annulment, because from Meka's account, it sounds like the judge just decided to grant it because she was okay with it and Michael was obviously okay with it because he's the one who asked for it, and the facts were a big mess.
That's not how it's supposed to work--the judge is supposed to listen to the testimony and decide what the facts (truth) are, and then apply the law to those facts. So how did this happen? That's when I realized that the only way irregularities get reviewed is if there is an appeal, and if both parties want the annulment, then neither will appeal.
And it might seem that if both parties want the annulment, then what's the problem with giving it to them, but if that's the system we want, then we need to change the laws that require that annulments can be granted only if certain elements are present.
I don't know of any account of Brandon and Taylor's annulment, but Brandon had the same lawyer Michael did, and my recollection is that Brandon was alleging fraud by the show, but also that Taylor went on the show only to increase her social media presence, which could be evidence of fraud on her part, and she'd be there to address that (unlike allegations of fraud by the show). What I'd like to know is whether that judge explicitly found that Taylor had engaged in fraud and granted the annulment based on that, or if it was another mishmash decision like Meka and Michael's.
-
2
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, pdlinda said:
Even a divorce, should the couple choose to stay married on decision day but wish to divorce at a later date, involves costs ,TIME and effort to make sure all the paperwork is filled out and processed properly (probably would involve retaining an attorney).
I have a friend who years ago did her own divorce in Texas (probably the early 1980s). She got a book called "Do Your Own Divorce" or something and followed the instructions, and at the end of the hearing, the judge said something like, "Congratulations, little lady, you're divorced!"
Frankly, I don't know why anybody on this show would fight to get an annulment instead of just filing for divorce. It just doesn't fit, to me, that someone who has very strong feelings about marriage, and the unacceptability of divorce, would sign up for this show in the first place.
QuoteWhat you're describing (especially the part about the Court's discretion regarding granting or denying the application)
To clarify--the judge isn't exercising any discretion. The statute sets out the grounds for an annulment. The judge isn't granted the discretion to ignore them, but he can make a mistake in determining whether the facts support those grounds.
A decision based on such a mistake stands unless it's challenged on appeal, and in the case of a MAFS marriage, the other spouse is unlikely to want to appeal an annulment.
-
2
-
-
-
15 hours ago, DawnDavenport said:
She also mentioned in one of her comments that she "passed" the LSAT. I didn't realize it was a pass/fail exam.
I've read only the theashleys story about this and not Farrah's own whatever it was that she put this on. But to be fair, theashleys' story referred to a commentor: "The individual also told Farrah that before taking the 'bar exam,' she would need to complete certain courses, and before that, pass the LSATs– the test administered to students prior to admission to law school." Maybe Farrah was responding to that, which is just as inaccurate as anything Farrah's claiming.
Trying to figure out what Farrah's saying or claiming reminds me that I've always thought it was easier for a lawyer to go up against a good lawyer than a bad lawyer. Going up against a good lawyer is difficult but at least the battle is clear. When you go up against a bad lawyer, you have to figure out what their arguments should be and only then can you battle them. It's twice the work.
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, ECM1231 said:
I'd have opted to try to get the marriage annulled, if I were him, but that might have proved difficult since they consummated the marriage.
Marriage, divorce, and annulment laws are state specific, and can vary among states. I've looked at the annulment laws of several states over the last couple of years (including Texas, where Ryan lives) because of this stupid show, and have yet to find one that allows an annulment based solely on the marriage never having been consummated. I think this is a misconception along the lines of living together for X number of years automatically makes you common-law married--that's not the law in any state.
Grounds for annulment are based on things like mental capacity, duress, fraud. In several states I've looked into, one of the grounds is permanent impotence, but the statutes require the physical inability to have sex, and not just the choice not to have sex.
I've seen plenty of websites that say non-consummation is grounds for annulment, and while that's technically true, it's not the whole story. Every time I looked at the underlying statute in that state, the statute said the non-consummation has to be because of physical impotence. That means you can file for an annulment based on non-consummation, but in order to satisfy the statute and actually get the annulment, you'll have to prove that the non-consummation is because of physical inability, and sometimes permanent physical inability.
And that makes sense because the whole idea behind annulment is that you agreed to something you wouldn't have agreed to if you'd known all the facts. In fact, the Texas statute says a marriage becomes ineligible for annulment based on impotency if the party continues to cohabit with the impotent person after learning of the impotency.
But here's where it gets really interesting: It's a judge who decides whether to grant an annulment, and there's actually nothing stopping him from deciding whatever he wants regardless of the statute. He could be in a state where permanent impotence is required in the case of non-consummation, but grant the annulment based solely on the wife refusing to have sex with her husband because she just doesn't want to (no showing of impotence), or despite uncontroverted evidence that the husband is having sex with other women and is therefore not impotent. The decision would be reviewed only if there is an appeal, and if both parties are happy with the decision to grant the annulment, there won't be an appeal. The annulment will stand, even though it didn't satisfy the requirements of the statute, but only because it didn't get appealed and not because it was the correct application of the statute to the facts presented.
17 hours ago, Elizzikra said:Eh - I know Catholics who married in the church and definitely consummated the marriage on multiple occasions because they had children; they still managed to get their marriages annulled.
Annulment in the Catholic church is different froam civil annulment because it addresses only the sacrament of marriage, and not the legality of a marriage. The usual situation is divorced people request an annulment from the church, and if it is granted, it means they can remarry in the church, but they're still divorced in the eyes of the law.
-
4
-
1
-
-
The "oosh"ing continues unabated. When Alex does it, it's like she's trying to be one of the cool kids, and it makes me sad--she's better than that.
-
On 10/28/2021 at 1:25 AM, toodywoody said:
He wants to pound that piece of shit?
-
4
-
-
On 12/27/2021 at 9:13 AM, toodywoody said:
Farrah has let Sophia do whatever she wanted since she was small. Farrah is going to get a taste of her own medicine in a couple years when Sophia gets really nasty and back talking with her like she did with Debra.
But that's assuming that Sophia does something for which Farrah voices an objection that would prompt backtalking. What could Farrah possibly object to? Sophia going to college? Sophia getting a job a normal (i.e. non-Farrah) person would get?
But there's no chance Sophia will do anything remotely of the sort, with the upbringing she's had. So I'm predicting very little conflict. Just another case where the ones who most deserve misery don't suffer it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Yeah No said:
She may assume that when the camera people go home, she is off the record.
But @Empress1 gave examples where this very show has used night-camera-in-the-apartment footage in previous episodes.
Maybe (and possibly apparently) she did assume she was off the record, but it wasn't a reasonable assumption, knowing what everybody knows about reality TV by now. The only people who can claim "I didn't realize" would be the Loud family, and the original New York City cast of The Real World.
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, GussieK said:
I thought the head was cocked to the side because the body had been jolted around.
It was like that when they first put him in, which I thought was about the saddest thing I'd ever seen. Antoine made the decision to take a smaller casket, and then when Benoit started to drag a bigger one to the sled, Antoine stopped him and went for the smaller one.
And for all its bleakness, it had some nice comic touches. Like the barrel of nails at the bottom of the staircase as almost a supporting actor. And then they finally move it, and somebody walking by unconsciously dodges the place where it used to be.
TCM shows some of the strangest things sometimes. This morning, they aired what I'd guess you'd call a travel documentary, called "Letter from Siberia," directed by Chris Marker. Marker can be a little too out there for my taste, but this is a real gem. It has a voiceover narration that I'm assuming replaces the original French narration, and I usually avoid dubbed anything, but the voice was perfect. Describing the furs Siberians use, he said, "...such as the sable, a nasty little beast that would make you like furs, or the Arctic fox, a sweet little thing that would make you prefer nylon."
And in a segment about a gold mining town, he said, "As for women, they say there were none at all in the beginning, which is a sad thought, and that later, there was only one, which sounds even worse."
I may have to give Chris Marker a second look.
This is why I cling to TCM via my DirecTV. I can't imagine that I ever would have chosen to stream this, among the millions of things people can stream these days. But it forced itself onto my TV, and I'm glad it did.
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 12/30/2021 at 12:19 PM, GussieK said:
I've been catching some more obscure Christmas movies, both set in general stores:
...
Mon Oncle Antoine.
Are "Christmas movies" allowed to be this bleak? Not all of it, of course, and the scenes of revealing the nativity scene and the festivities in the store on Christmas Eve were charming, and had me almost believing I could survive in a small town.
But despair, regret, drunkenness, adultery, and death don't generally scream "Christmas movie" to me. Of course several of them probably do scream Actual Christmas, but this is the movies.
I might not soon forget the image of that kid in the casket with his head cocked to the side because the casket was too small. And do you think Mr. Poulin is the one who found the casket? Holy hell.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Elizzikra said:
It's a pretty dress though...
I can't stand V necks that are filled in with illusion. It looks cheap because you can always see the edge. And lining the breasts with white circles just makes them look like headlights.
-
6
-
-
15 hours ago, Yeah No said:
She probably never thought her private conversation with trusted friends would ever leak out to the show.
Who would expect privacy in a conversation with her fellow castmates on a reality show, about what's happening in a relationship that is the basis of the show, about a salacious element of the show, in a room they know has cameras in it? Plus, who has random castmates become trusted friends in less than a month?
And speaking of that, it's ridiculous for Ryan to expect Clara agree to keep their sex life secret, and it's ridiculous for him to trust her to do it even if she does agree. He barely even knows the woman. I think previous couples have done it, but that's no reason to think your spouse is going to be able to do it. That's where the concept of trust comes in, and he has no reason to trust this person he barely knows, even if he is married to her.
QuotePlus I doubt that the producers warn the couples that everything they say might be recorded by surveillance cameras and used for content on the show.
I'd bet a bunch of money it's at least in their contract. And even if it's not, I'm pretty sure I've seen such footage in previous seasons.
Do these people really think the goal of the show is a lasting marriage for them? The goal of the show is the show. If the people involved in the show cared only about the marriages, they'd be in the private matchmaking business. But they're not. They're in entertainment.
-
9
-
-
Directed by Sean Baker, who did Tangerine and The Florida Project, and can always be relied upon to bring something new.
Still can't figure out how to post a trailer, but here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfndmy-6e28
This is a wild ride, and Simon Rex as Mikey is a-ma-zing. I've never had less in common with a human in my life, but I was helpless in his presence--I loved being around him.
It's also authentic. Strawberry is fishing around in the refrigerator and asks Mikey if he wants a Coke and he says yes, and she hands him a Big Red. God bless Texas.
-
1 hour ago, Polliwollidoodle said:
Last night was so so so so so so prolonged and painful that I kept switching away to other channels because it just was not in the least interesting. I also dozed.
The problem is that they showed some things things in the "package" on each couple that weren't shown on the matchmaking episode, and maybe it's because we know so little about them, but these things seemed important to know. But it's impossible to pick them up if you're FFing or flipping channels--they're embedded.
This show is diabolical.
-
Also, for those of you who didn't watch the show, they showed the scene from the retreat where Michaela was knocking stuff over and being restrained and slamming the door on the cameraman.
One of the guests asked her: "But moving forward, you know, what have you learned from this in terms of dealing with your fiery side so it doesn't negatively impact a future relationship?"
Michaela answered: "What I learned from this is, I wanted my marriage. It didn't work out. But I do want marriage and I do want a healthy relationship. And I see what it is, is I am more in tune with my emotions, more vulnerable, and I speak up when something's bothering me instead of bottling it up and then, poof! So I'm very grateful for this process for that, very grateful."
[Me, to myself: "Hmm. Kind of nonresponsive, but maybe this could be interpreted as an intention to lay off the raging."]
Then another guest asked: "What do you think was the toughest part of watching this back for you?"
Michaela answered: "I think the toughest part of watching it back is looking at myself."
[Me, to myself: "That's promising."]
Michaela continued: "I'm like, 'Wow, like, I'm really, that's a sad Michaela.'"
[Me, to myself: "That took a turn."]
Michaela continued: "That's not the loud laughter, big smile, just happy and having a great time Michaela. That's a Michaela who is afraid of losing her marriage and is walking on eggshells and doesn't feel like she can truly be herself. I think that's--that's one of the things that, as I watch it back, I'm like 'Okay, never again.' Never again will I let myself suppress myself behind somebody else."
I certainly didn't see a sad Michaela walking on eggshells and not truly being herself. But she's the one whose view matters, so good for her, I guess.
-
2
-
1
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, chessiegal said:
If it melts and evaporates, there is no water to refreeze. I know our driveway, once the snow melts, on a sunny day will evaporate any moisture and we have a dry driveway.
And that's aided by Denver's low humidity.
However, you have to be mindful of snow piled up around the dry areas because if it starts to melt, the water can move onto the previously dry areas and freeze overnight and become ice. I ran into that when I was shoveling a parking lot--I got a nice dry path going through there, but after I finished the banks on the side continued to melt and the water was going over my beautiful path and it froze overnight.
BTW, I've always said I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed shoveling snow. Only later did I realize I enjoyed shoveling certain snow, namely the featherlight powder Denver gets in the winter. The spring snow they get, the wet heavy gloppy stuff? It's awful, and I suddenly realized why people in the midwest and New England hate shoveling snow. You're not getting two feet of that off your car with a little whisk broom.
-
3
-
-
On 12/30/2021 at 9:26 AM, TVJunkee said:
8:00 came and I was saying to myself--what I am going to do on a Wednesday night with no Survivor AND no MAFS? Then I checked the Uverse and it said a MAFS was set to record at 8:00! viewing prayers answered.
As they say, Watch out what you ask for.
-
5
-
-
Kevin even said something like because of Covid, I can't be there. Why not? Everybody else always is.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Retired at last said:
Also, I didn't watch last night, but what did Clara say? The article just has a bunch of crap about her being proud of herself and wanting to share her truth, but didn't mention what she would say. The rest of the article just repeated what Ryan had already posted.
The conflict, according to her, centered around that scene where the surveillance camera showed her bitching about the sex. Ryan apparently continued to bring it up, and couldn't get over it. She didn't mention cultural differences, although she did say that Ryan wanted to keep their sex life a secret and she agreed to do that--maybe his wanting to keep their sex status a secret from his family could be considered a cultural difference.
Anyway, what I find interesting about it is that in that surveillance camera scene she was talking in terms of "everything but," which made it sound like she was pleasuring him but he wasn't reciprocating, but on last night's show she said that they "consummated" the marriage after about a month, and wasn't that surveillance camera scene after that?
But now that I think about it, maybe she went the "everything but" route to "technically" fulfill her agreement not to talk about sex, which she interpreted as consummation, i.e. intercourse? And in Ryan's defense, what she said in that scene really did paint him in a horrible light. If she'd said they were having intercourse and it just wasn't doing it for her, then he could be seen as an inept lover, who might learn. But the way it came out, he was a selfish jerk. But if that happened because he talked her into keeping the intercourse a secret and she just botched the handling of it while fulfilling her duties to the show to talk about it, then the blame goes back on him.
-
6
-
-
22 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:
A nice "as told to" piece from Susie Essman on the fashion choices of Susie Greene, differences between Real Susie and Show Susie, and the odds for a season 12.
My immediate thought was, "Please let there be some differences between the fashion choices of Show Susie and Real Susie." Tracey Ullman's doing a nice job of being repellent, but I have to hand it to Susie for being willing to strut around so confidently in those heinous outfits.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, mojito said:
A house facing the south to avoid all that shoveling. Well, that's a new angle on must-haves. You know they're going to get a snowblower anyway for the sidewalk around that corner house (I think it was a corner house), so what's the big deal?
I've spent a few winters in Denver, and the "sun shovel" is very real. And now that I think about it, snow blower ownership seems much lower there than in the midwest or New England.
Snow storms tend to be followed by sunshine, and that sun can melt several inches of snow in just a few hours. But of course it has to actually hit the snow.
Because of the low angle of the sun in the winter, north-facing buildings cast shadows that never allow the snow shadowed by them to get any sun, and you can really tell. On a given street, the houses that face south will have completely dry driveways and sidewalks, while the ones on the north side are packed snow. And the south-facing yards will have significantly less snow on them than yards that don't get any sun.
It shows even on the streets--along an east-west street, the parking spaces on the north side of the street will be completely dry because the sun has hit them, while the spaces on the south side will have big piles of snow all in them that take forever to go away. Streets without parking spaces will have snow piles all along the curb on the south side of the street, but will be completely clear on the north side of the street.
If I were buying in the Denver area, I would very heavily favor south facing, and let the sun do most of my shoveling.
-
10
-
2
-
Belfast (2021)
in Movies
I saw it in a theater for $7. No, make that $5; it was discount Tuesday.
I adored the little kid in this. Between him and the kid in C'mon C'mon, it's a really strong year for the youth.