S39.E08: We Made it to the Merge!

[Bryce Lynch]

23 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

You are talking about assault, which is still against the law.

If you murder someone, the victim cannot press charges.  It's still against the law.  If someone steals your car, and you have no idea who did it, it's still against the law.  Etc. I could go on forever.

But, with rare exceptions, (murder being the most prominent one), if the victim does not file charges, no charges are filed.   

If you steal my car, and I don't report it or don't press charges when the police pull you over driving the stolen car, you are not going to jail   

[Ms Blue Jay]

In recent years the show has been about keeping "goats" around to go to the final 3 with and eliminating social, strategic threats.  This favours keeping Dan in the game for as long as possible (someone seen as not deserved of the money for his behaviour) as opposed to Kellee (a strategic threat).  It is possible all of the women or most of the women were bothered by Dan but are lying and saying they are NOT bothered by it to keep Dan in the game and go to the final 3 with him as opposed to someone like Kellee.

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But, with rare exceptions, (murder being the most prominent one), if the victim does not file charges, no charges are filed.   

If you steal my car, and I don't report it or don't press charges when the police pull you over driving the stolen car, you are not going to jail   

That is obviously understood.

Drogo's argument was that Dan "didn't do anything criminal".  I say he did.  He broke the law.

I'm not saying anything about pressing charges, arrests, police, jail blah blah blah.  Anything like that. He broke the law repeatedly on the show.  That's my point.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, Drogo said:

Kellee was clear to the producer that she felt everything would work itself out and she didn't want the show to intervene.  She felt similarly the next day when they met with everyone again privately and off-camera. 

Why would any of us be fine with the show intervening after Kellee was clear that she didn't want them to? 

This is exactly what I'm most furious about when it comes to Production.  Kellee never ever should have been put in the position of making that decision.  It's difficult enough to speak up about things like this in the first place, the onus of reprimanding the other person involved shouldn't fall to the victim.  And the main reason for this is that, 9 times out of 10, the victim will downplay it or sometimes drop it altogether because they already feel like a troublemaker for coming forward and don't want to get blamed even more.  In an office setting, when someone complains about sexual harassment, it's not up to them whether or not that person gets fired.  Filing the complaint is all the victim has to do, it's then up to the people in charge to take action.  In this case, Production never should have put Kellee in the position of having to decide whether she wanted to remove Dan from the game, they should have just removed him.  Period.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Rachel RSL

[deirdra]

If Dan had tried to touch my head, as a reflex I would have given him an elbow in the jaw or gut.  If he rubbed my leg or toes, as a reflex, I would have kicked since it could have been a spider or scorpion.  Would that get ME kicked off Survivor for protecting myself while the perp stays on the show?

Edited November 18, 2019 by deirdra

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

In recent years the show has been about keeping "goats" around to go to the final 3 with and eliminating social, strategic threats.  This favours keeping Dan in the game for as long as possible (someone seen as not deserved of the money for his behaviour) as opposed to Kellee (a strategic threat).  It is possible all of the women or most of the women were bothered by Dan but are lying and saying they are NOT bothered by it to keep Dan in the game and go to the final 3 with him as opposed to someone like Kellee.

That is obviously understood.

Drogo's argument was that Dan didn't break the law.  I say he did.

I'm not saying anything about pressing charges, arrests, police, jail blah blah blah.  Anything like that. He broke the law repeatedly on the show.  That's my point.

In the case of crimes involving unwanted touching, among people who know each other, I think it is kind of hard to say someone broke the law, until a victim is wiling to file a criminal complaint.   The victim's perception is much more important in such cases, than, for example if Dan just walked up and punched someone in the nose.  

If a police officer saw someone walk up and punch another person in the nose, he would probably make an arrest right away, as nobody is OK with being punched in the nose.  If the victim declined to press charges, the puncher would probably not be charged.

If a police officer saw a man touching a woman's hair and face, as they talked, putting his arm around her and touching her rib cage, or tickling her toes, while they were at a bbq on the beach, he would probably do nothing, or at most ask the woman if she is OK with it.  Without the context of the woman making a complaint, it is difficult to know whether the touching was unwanted and if it was unwanted, how seriously the woman took it.   

[Bryce Lynch]

15 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

This is exactly what I'm most furious about when it comes to Production.  Kellee never ever should have been put in the position of making that decision.  It's difficult enough to speak up about things like this in the first place, the onus of reprimanding the other person involved shouldn't fall to the victim.  And the main reason for this is that, 9 times out of 10, the victim will downplay it or sometimes drop it altogether because they already feel like a troublemaker for coming forward and don't want to get blamed even more.  In an office setting, when someone complains about sexual harassment, it's not up to them whether or not that person gets fired.  Filing the complaint is all the victim has to do, it's then up to the people in charge to take action.  In this case, Production never should have put Kellee in the position of having to decide whether she wanted to remove Dan from the game, they should have just removed him.  Period.

I think that in an office situation the victim would be asked what they want done.  If the victim just wants an apology and the behavior to stop, the offender might not get fired.  Also, I'm not sure what Dan did to Kellee would be a fireable offense, though.   What he did to some of the other women would certainly be, if they complained, but they didn't.   

I also believe the victim must do more than file a complaint, especially in a case that leads to termination  The victim would be interviewed, probably multiple times and asked to provide whatever corroborating evidence she has.  

Also, this is not an office situation.  On Survivor, all the players have input on who goes home.  It is a true Democracy, which in this case might make one think that true Democracy might be overrated.  Also, depending upon the situation, Kellee might have not thought it was in her best interest to eject Dan.  Also, a lot more touching goes on in Survivor than in an office, so the lines of what is and what is not appropriate are not as clear.   

That said, I would have no problem if Dan were to be ejected.  In fact, I would love to see it happen.   I just don't think it is so clear cut that production did wrong by not ejecting him against the victim's wishes.  

[Jobiska]

On a totally different subject:  Last episode, I complained that though I didn't mind the Rob and Sandra twist, I didn't like it that they were getting the title quotes.

If "We made it to the merge!" is the scintillating, tantalizing best of what all the other Survivors came up with, bring on the Rob and Sandra quotes!

[himela]

I don't think that producers should have removed Dan from the game. Dan is who he is but it seems that only Kellee was really bothered by it. Missy, Elizabeth and Lauren were joking about it, Karishma and Noura didn't seem to have any experience from Dan and Janet wasn't even sure the story the girls were saying was accurate. Kellee was asked whether the problem was so big as to remove him and she said no, why? She said it herself, she didn't want to jeopardize the numbers of old Vokai. Only when Jamal decided to vote Dan out because he thought he was targeting him, only then Janet, Kellee etc decided to actually vote him out. Had it not been for Jamal, Kellee would have voted for Missy. So, Kellee had a problem with Dan but she didn't want him removed. Other than that, if the producers remove Dan now, who's to say this won't be used as strategy in later seasons? False accusations to have a big threat removed from the game?

To sum up, if the players want, they can just vote him out. Producers asked them, they said no, end of story.

[nutty1]

re: Jamal's trip to IOI. That was bullshit!! He was supposed to just ignore a note hanging in front of his face???

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, himela said:

I don't think that producers should have removed Dan from the game. Dan is who he is but it seems that only Kellee was really bothered by it. Missy, Elizabeth and Lauren were joking about it, Karishma and Noura didn't seem to have any experience from Dan and Janet wasn't even sure the story the girls were saying was accurate. Kellee was asked whether the problem was so big as to remove him and she said no, why? She said it herself, she didn't want to jeopardize the numbers of old Vokai. Only when Jamal decided to vote Dan out because he thought he was targeting him, only then Janet, Kellee etc decided to actually vote him out. Had it not been for Jamal, Kellee would have voted for Missy. So, Kellee had a problem with Dan but she didn't want him removed. Other than that, if the producers remove Dan now, who's to say this won't be used as strategy in later seasons? False accusations to have a big threat removed from the game?

To sum up, if the players want, they can just vote him out. Producers asked them, they said no, end of story.

I think Missy was bothered by it, but decided to make a big move rather than stand up against unwanted touching.   I even think Elizabeth was bothered by it, but more convincingly played it off as nothing, but I am less certain of that.

But, if the players aren't willing to step up to production and say, "He's sexually harassing me, I want him out." then I'm not sure production should remove him.   I wouldn't object to his removal, but I don't think you can fault production for not doing it, lacking such a request or demand.  

[Libby]

Dan obviously has some kind of psychological problem. A fellow contestant in a game for a million dollars told him not to touch her. For a normal person it would have been easy, just don't touch her. Nope, he could not control himself. He knew that his unwanted touching would be caught on camera and that millions of people would see his inability to control himself, yet he didn't stop. Now it's time for Dan to deal with the fallout. Good.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Libby

[HighwayFlower]

If Dan was given a warning and stopped, it could have been the end. If he continued, then he should have been ejected. Hard to know when we don’t see an accurate timeline.

Missy and Elizabeth magnified the issue and used it as gameplay, so even if he had stopped after the warning, the issue could no longer go away. 

[RedbirdNelly]

I can't really add to what has already been said. What a frustrating episode. This flipped from a season of "not really anyone I'm rooting against besides Dan--and we know he's not winning" to "I'm only rooting for Janet and can tolerate a few others-but really, my fall back is Noura? and Karishma??"

[fishcakes]

Sort of OT, but so many people are talking about it that I feel the need to lawsplain. "Filing charges" or "pressing charges" by the victim is not a real thing, except on TV. If the police determine a crime has occurred, they are legally obligated to make an arrest, even if the victim is standing right there going, "uh, no, officer, he didn't beat me, I just fell down 17 times." Filing charges (lodging formal charges via indictment or information) and pressing charges (prosecuting the crime) is the prerogative of the prosecutor's office. They might decide not to go forward with the case if the victim says she won't cooperate, but even then they will often prosecute anyway, particularly in cases where you have a scared victim who is likely to recant or lie to protect the offender, which is so common in domestic violence cases that it's the norm there. Essentially, once law enforcement becomes aware of an offense or a potential offense, then what happens after that is completely out of the victim's hands.

Not saying that analogizing Kellee's situation to a crime is apt, but if we're going to do that, then Production is in the role of police/prosecutor there and it's not only up to them what happens to Dan, it's their obligation to see that Kellee and the other women are protected and Dan is dealt with appropriately. That burden would not be on Kellee. Even though Kellee was saying, "no don't do anything, I think it will be fine," it was up to the producers to decide if -- given what they knew to be true about Dan because they had the video footage -- ejection from the game was warranted. For me, I can't even get to the question of "should or shouldn't the producers have removed him?" because I'm still stuck on the fact that they punted to Kellee, which was unfair to her and an abdication of their responsibility.

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, himela said:

if the producers remove Dan now, who's to say this won't be used as strategy in later seasons? False accusations to have a big threat removed from the game?

But that's not the case here at all.  This isn't a matter of false accusations.  There is video proof of Kellee telling Dan not to touch her (multiple times) and video proof of Dan continuing to do so.  We have seen with our own eyes that Kellee was telling the truth.  

1 hour ago, himela said:

To sum up, if the players want, they can just vote him out.

I've seen a few people say this and it just makes my anger at Production grow even stronger.  Could they have just voted Dan out if he made them uncomfortable?  Sure.  But why should Kellee or any player have to change their strategy and waste a vote-out just to get rid of someone who has been told multiple times, including an official warning from the show, to stop touching people?  It's not the responsibility of the players to fix this.  

Edited November 18, 2019 by Rachel RSL

[RedbirdNelly]

also I am kind of surprised there is not a clear game rule on the Dan behavior. Even crazy MTV shows have strict rules (or at least they used to) on not assaulting a castmate. I can see with Dan's behavior (not the same as punching someone) there would be more of a "if asked to stop/if warned once" type rule, but I would think it would have been pretty darn clear.

[Drogo]

10 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I feel the need to lawsplain.  "Filing charges" or "pressing charges" by the victim is not a real thing, except on TV.

Making a complaint, in the form of a police or incident report, most assuredly exists outside of television shows.  I've seen many incidents dropped in my life without arrest (including physical assault) because no one would complete one, and that's across several states. 

1 hour ago, HighwayFlower said:

If Dan was given a warning and stopped, it could have been the end. If he continued, then he should have been ejected. Hard to know when we don’t see an accurate timeline.

My question is, was production's warning only about touching Kellee or was it about touching any of the women without their consent?  I guess we don't know.   

[laurakaye]

1 hour ago, Libby said:

Dan obviously has some kind of psychological problem. A fellow contestant in a game for a million dollars told him not to touch her. For a normal person it would have been easy, just don't touch her. Nope, he could not control himself. He knew that his unwanted touch was caught on camera and that millions of people would see his inability to control himself, yet he couldn't stop. Now it's time for Dan to deal with the fallout. Good.

And unless I'm mistaken, everyone involved in this has posted on social media exept Dan, who made his accounts private and hasn't said anything about anything.

[ProfCrash]

28 minutes ago, Drogo said:

Making a complaint, in the form of a police or incident report, most assuredly exists outside of television shows.  I've seen many incidents dropped in my life without arrest (including physical assault) because no one would complete one, and that's across several states. 

My question is, was production's warning only about touching Kellee or was it about touching any of the women without their consent?  I guess we don't know.   

If the only witness is the person dropping the charges and the officers do not have any other evidence, then someone who is guilty as sin will be let go. There is no case to be made sans the witness. If there is other evidence, like a video camera capturing you beating someone in an elevator, you are likely to still be charged and prosecuted because there is hard evidence.

There are victims of assault and domestic abuse who will refuse to testify but charges are pressed and the person is prosecuted because other witnesses are willing to testify and/or there is other evidence that can be used to prosecute the crime.

[fishcakes]

30 minutes ago, Drogo said:

Making a complaint, in the form of a police or incident report, most assuredly exists outside of television shows.  I've seen many incidents dropped in my life without arrest (including physical assault) because no one would complete one, and that's across several states. 

Okay, well, we're talking about different things then. A complaint and charges are two entirely different beasts. I'm just explaining what I know to be the law from my experience in being a criminal lawyer for 15 years. If you've seen cases where police knew an assault occurred and didn't make an arrest because the victim was reluctant, then all I can say is those officers didn't do their job. That happens too. In any case, as I said, I don't know that this is a particularly helpful analogy when it comes to Dan, except that it does illustrate that the onus should not be on the victim to determine what happens.

[ProfCrash]

5 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

And unless I'm mistaken, everyone involved in this has posted on social media exept Dan, who made his accounts private and hasn't said anything about anything.

I suspect that the fallout is not done for Dan. This is going to come up as long as he is in the game. People are going to be watching the episodes like a hawk looking for signs that he is still touching people and making them uncomfortable. I think everyone else has a clear case that the bog blow back for them is likely overish but Dan is not going to say anything until he is voted out.

[himela]

19 minutes ago, ProfCrash said:

I suspect that the fallout is not done for Dan. This is going to come up as long as he is in the game. People are going to be watching the episodes like a hawk looking for signs that he is still touching people and making them uncomfortable. I think everyone else has a clear case that the bog blow back for them is likely overish but Dan is not going to say anything until he is voted out.

Well if I were Dan I would wait for the game to end, then have my lawyer make an announcement to the press and not appear anywhere for a long time till this thing is forgotten. 

Regarding Kellee, we don't know whether this scene they showed about Dan trying to touch her hair happened on day 22 or on day 2. This could have happened the same day he was touching her and she was annoyed before she even told him to stop. I'm not saying he is innocent, I just don't believe the edit.

Have the interviews with Kellee and Jamal happened yet?

Edited November 18, 2019 by himela

[ProfCrash]

No interviews that I have seen

[MissEwa]

I think most of what I keep going over in my head about this episode has been said, but I'm going to add myself to the chorus of 'it doesn't matter if it's a crime, if someone asks you to stop touching them you stop touching them'. It doesn't even matter WHY they ask. Maybe Kellee was actually a germaphobe like she claimed in the first episode. Maybe she has super-sensitive skin. Maybe she's had some trauma in her past that makes her dislike being touched the way Dan was going it. Maybe she's just oversensitive. It doesn't matter WHY. She is not obligated to let him touch her. She doesn't need a rational and widely-accepted-by-a-bunch-of-randoms-on-the-internet reason. If someone asks you to stop touching them, then you stop. It's actually that simple. 

And yes, it's Survivor - there are going to be times it's impossible. But she wasn't complaining about if he had to take her hand to pull her up a wall in a challenge, or whatever. These were all instances where he did not have to be touching her, but he was. Deliberately.

(As an aside, I don't see any 'just' about someone brushing a hair from someone elses face. The thought of anyone I'm not super-close to touching my face makes me shudder. I would never do it to anyone else, not even a good friend, and I would be creeped out by someone doing it to me, even if they didn't mean anything by it. Clearly YMMV, but just the fact that mileage does, in fact, vary, is as good a reason as anything to just.... NOT touch other people if you don't know they're okay with it.)

One thing that I've been thinking about is WHY - beyond my own personal issues - this episode felt so uniquely awful and upsetting. I've seen lots of people say it's the absolute worst thing they've seen on Survivor, and from an emotional standpoint, I agree.

But if I'm being clear-headed about it, I feel like what Varner did to Zeke was maybe worse, as a single act of utter awfulness. But Varner got his comeuppance. His entire tribe turned on him - and let's be real, who knows how ALL the rest of them really felt about what happened, maybe a couple of them didn't really care, but all of them universally seemed to understand that it was a Bad Thing To Do,  and should be punished - and he got booted from the game. He was the bad guy who did a bad thing, but he paid a price for it. There was a sense of justice being done. The good guys won, at least in a game sense.  

Here... the good guys lost. Kellee got booted. Janet has no allies and is likely out next. Jamal got booted. The bad guys are in control of the game and it's likely someone whose behaviour in all of this was at best questionable, will win. There's no happy ending. And in that, it's a bit too much like real life, because for all we talk about Me Too ruining careers and "cancelling" people, unless you actually ARE Harvey Weinstein, you're probably going to come out the other end fine, and that is... depressing as hell. 

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, fishcakes said:

Okay, well, we're talking about different things then. A complaint and charges are two entirely different beasts. I'm just explaining what I know to be the law from my experience in being a criminal lawyer for 15 years. If you've seen cases where police knew an assault occurred and didn't make an arrest because the victim was reluctant, then all I can say is those officers didn't do their job. That happens too. In any case, as I said, I don't know that this is a particularly helpful analogy when it comes to Dan, except that it does illustrate that the onus should not be on the victim to determine what happens.

In this sort of case, whether something is a sex crime or civil tort or nothing at all, is largely based upon the perception of the person being touched.   Without a victim complaining it would generally be nearly impossible determine whether or not a law was violated.   A complaint, plus the video footage would make a very strong case.  But, without a complaint, there is no context for the footage. 

Assault is generally much more obvious, on sight than this sort of sexual misconduct.  If you walk up to me punch me in my nose, without provocation and then kick me in the groin 6 times, that is pretty obviously assault, and it would take quite a story from me to explain how it wasn't.  

Edited November 18, 2019 by Bryce Lynch

[himela]

I'm wondering, what would a woman in eastern countries think about this matter, a woman who has no right to go out or travel without her brother or husband, who recently got the right to drive (!), or even worse, a woman who doesn't have a say in anything, she is just a sex and baby machine for her husband, a woman who can be raped and she doesn't ever get justice and so on? Just food for thought. In the Western countries we find it super normal that a woman will ask not to be touched and people will respect that. Not the same in the whole world. 😞

[laurakaye]

The other thing about what Varner did to Zeke is that Varner seemed to almost instantaneously realize what he had done after he'd done it, why it was so terrible, and then he summarily left the game.  Dan, on the other hand, doesn't seem to get (or care) that what he was doing was not okay, and even as he's being told this at TC, he still gets to put his grimy hands on Noura and no one says a word about it.  Also, he will likely be there for Final 3.

Varner also issued several apologies after the episode aired, while Dan has been radio silent. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by laurakaye

[fishcakes]

43 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

In this sort of case, whether something is a sex crime or civil tort or nothing at all, is largely based upon the perception of the person being touched.   Without a victim complaining it would generally be nearly impossible determine whether or not a law was violated.  

Assault is generally much more obvious, on sight than this sort of sexual misconduct.  If you walk up to me punch me in my nose, without provocation and then kick me in the groin 6 times, that is pretty obviously assault, and it would take quite a story from me to explain how it wasn't.  

I don't disagree with any of that. What makes these kinds of situations tough is that I would characterize what Dan did to Kellee as sexual harassment, which is not a crime, but obviously not okay. And since we heard the other women talking about how he was grabbing breasts and we saw him pushing his groin up against someone's backside on the bungalow nightcam (I think that was Missy), then that's sexual assault unless the women consent, which they implicitly seemed to do, but Missy at least seemed very uncomfortable with it. So when these lines get crossed, it can be hard to characterize exactly what it was that happened, and this is why women struggle so much regarding what they should do when it happens to them. Some very high-profile men in Hollywood and in the news industry have been accused of everything up to and including rape where the women didn't come forward for years because they had fears of reprisal, losing their jobs, being vilified, being gossiped about, being blamed ... just any number of other considerations. But it's not very likely that, for example, a new woman gets hired at, say, a morning news show, the male anchor of that show says, "hey, great to meet you," and then rapes her on the spot. There was a progression there where he went from probably making suggestive remarks, then non-sexual touching, and continuing to get more and more inappropriate until one day he's raping her in his office. Often, by the time the woman is uncomfortable enough to speak up, there's already been a progression that she's gone along with just hoping it wouldn't go further, and realistically, that's going to get thrown back in her face. "Well, you laughed at his dirty jokes, didn't you? You agreed to have a drink with him after work, right? You didn't say anything when he grabbed your ass in front of everyone?" The message is, "how was poor Unnamed Morning Show Anchor supposed to know it was not okay to lock you in his office and have sex with you after you sent him all those mixed signals?" That's why women don't speak up until later, if at all, but staying silent doesn't make what happened to them not a crime. And when there are others in power who know about it, have the ability to do something about it but don't, that only reinforces the idea that women shouldn't speak up.

And all of that is why Janet was such a hero. It cost her nothing to keep her mouth shut, but she believed she was in a position to help the younger women and she tried to do so. And that's why the producers are so blameworthy because they had more information than anyone, they had both audio and video of everything that happened, and their position was, "welp, we'll do something if you insist, Kellee, but otherwise, it's fine, right?" They were essentially telling her they didn't think her concerns were a big enough deal for them to step in, and like most victims, she was afraid to rock the boat. Compounding matters, they explicitly gave Dan a warning and when he grabbed Noura right at Tribal Council, they did nothing at all, thus indicating to Dan that the warning was just to pacify Kellee and that everything he's done and will probably continue to do is okay.

Edited November 18, 2019 by fishcakes

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I don't disagree with any of that. What makes these kinds of situations tough is that I would characterize what Dan did to Kellee as sexual harassment, which is not a crime, but obviously not okay. And since we heard the other women talking about how he was grabbing breasts and we saw him pushing his groin up against someone's backside on the bungalow nightcam (I think that was Missy), then that's sexual assault unless the women consent, which they implicitly seemed to do, but Missy at least seemed very uncomfortable with it. So when these lines get crossed, it's can be hard to characterize exactly what it was that happened, and this is why women struggle so much regarding what they should do when it happens to them. Some very high-profile men in Hollywood and in the news industry have been accused of everything up to and including rape where the women didn't come forward for years because they had fears of reprisal, losing their jobs, being vilified, being gossiped about, being blamed ... just any number of other considerations. But it's not very likely that, for example, a new woman gets hired at, say, a morning news show, the male anchor of that show says, "hey, great to meet you," and then rapes her on the spot. There was a progression there where he went from probably making suggestive remarks, then non-sexual touching, and continuing to get more and more inappropriate until one day he's raping her in his office. Often, by the time the woman is uncomfortable enough to speak up, there's already been a progression that she's gone along with just hoping it wouldn't go further, and realistically, that's going to get thrown back in her face. "Well, you laughed at his dirty jokes, didn't you? You agreed to have a drink with him after work, right? You didn't say anything when he grabbed your ass in front of everyone?" The message is, "how was poor Unnamed Morning Show Anchor supposed to know it was not okay to lock you in his office and have sex with you after you sent him all those mixed signals?" That's why women don't speak up until later, if at all, but staying silent doesn't make what happened to them not a crime. And when there are others in power who know about it, have the ability to do something about it but don't, that only reinforces the idea that women shouldn't speak up.

And all of that is why Janet was such a hero. It cost her nothing to keep her mouth shut, but she believed she was in a position to help the younger women and she did so. And that's why the producers are so blameworthy because they had more information than anyone, they had both audio and video of everything that happened, and their position was, "welp, we'll do something if you insist, Kellee, but otherwise, it's fine, right?" They were essentially telling her they didn't think her concerns were a big enough deal for them to step in, and like most victims, she was afraid to rock the boat. Compounding matters, they explicitly gave Dan a warning and when he grabbed Noura right at Tribal Council, they did nothing at all, thus indicating to Dan that the warning was just to pacify Kellee and that everything he's done and will probably continue to do is okay.

I agree with most of this.  But, I still can't fault production for giving Kellee agency to decide how far she wanted them to go with Dan.  Kellee was on the verge of voting Missy out and keeping Dan before Jamal and Janet turned against Dan.  

It was kind of a tough call, but I think I prefer Kellee being able to decide if the situation was so bad and ongoing that it was worth hurting her game over, or if she felt that with Janet around, she could avoid Dan's touching and keep him around as a number for a vote or two.  

Damn, I wish Kellee had played one of her damned idols and sent the slimeball home!  I rewatched the first half this morning and it was even more obvious to me that she had no reason to feel safe.  

The reason she went searching for the 2nd idol was that she thought Dan felt way too comfortable which made her suspect she was being double crossed.  

[Drogo]

10 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Damn, I wish Kellee had played one of her damned idols and sent the slimeball home!  I rewatched the first half this morning and it was even more obvious to me that she had no reason to feel safe.  

Then, I'm of the belief that no one walking into TC with 2 idols should ever leave that TC with 2 idols.  If you find HII #2, the universe is trying to tell you something. 

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, Drogo said:

Then, I'm of the belief that no one walking into TC with 2 idols should ever leave that TC with 2 idols.  If you find HII #2, the universe is trying to tell you something. 

Plus, she was so good at finding them, she might have found it again after they re-hid it.  

Rob and Sandra's next IOTI lesson should be about what to do when you have 2 idols.  There are only 2 options.  

a) Play an idol at the next TC.

b) Play both idols at the next TC.  

[Jel]

7 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I agree with most of this.  But, I still can't fault production for giving Kellee agency to decide how far she wanted them to go with Dan.  Kellee was on the verge of voting Missy out and keeping Dan before Jamal and Janet turned against Dan.  

It was kind of a tough call, but I think I prefer Kellee being able to decide if the situation was so bad and ongoing that it was worth hurting her game over, or if she felt that with Janet around, she could avoid Dan's touching and keep him around as a number for a vote or two.  

Damn, I wish Kellee had played one of her damned idols and sent the slimeball home!  I rewatched the first half this morning and it was even more obvious to me that she had no reason to feel safe.  

The reason she went searching for the 2nd idol was that she thought Dan felt way too comfortable which made her suspect she was being double crossed.  

First, I have to say that this entire discussion is interesting, and I so appreciate how civil everyone is keeping it. 

Do we know if CBS/Burnett Productions has an existing policy about unwanted touching?  It's hard to imagine they did (at the time) simply because, as Drogo pointed out, Jeff seemed very flummoxed by it. He's "learning", while another example was being played out in front of him in real time. Slow learner.

But if they did have such a policy, then I would think it was a clear violation because Kellee objected to the behavior and it continued, and CBS didn't step in and tell him he broke the rules.

If they don't have a policy already, then I hope they are working on something now. That would take the pressure off players, who are, after all, on a tv show, trying to win a million bucks. That's the biggest confounding variable and affects behavior at many levels.  

I appreciate the thoughtful comments about a woman's agency, but, on balance, (and it's not even by that much), I do think it puts an unfair burden on a player. CBS and Burnett are in charge, they make the rules, and they should have one for this type of situation. I'd prefer it was no touching without permission, but that may be too stringent and unnatural, so perhaps one "NO" and anything after that would be considered a rules violation and dealt with as all rules violations are in the game.

[ProfCrash]

3 hours ago, himela said:

I'm wondering, what would a woman in eastern countries think about this matter, a woman who has no right to go out or travel without her brother or husband, who recently got the right to drive (!), or even worse, a woman who doesn't have a say in anything, she is just a sex and baby machine for her husband, a woman who can be raped and she doesn't ever get justice and so on? Just food for thought. In the Western countries we find it super normal that a woman will ask not to be touched and people will respect that. Not the same in the whole world. 😞

Try Italy. There is one man who might have been able to have kids after he tried masterbating on me on the bus. And there is the idiot I grabbed by the throat and hurled away from my friend who he randomly started to french kiss as we walked through the park, at lunch time. Oh, and the crowd was upset with me for being so mean.

Or look up the countries with Women only busses and trains because the level of sexual harassment and assault is so high.

We have it good in the US.

That is why I find Elisabeth and Missy’s actions and Lauren’s dismissal of Kellee’s feelings so damaging. Because women in the US have it good and good allows feely folks to get away with making other people uncomfortable.

[Blissfool]

10 hours ago, laurakaye said:

I watched this twice.  What I found super interesting is that when Dan touched Missy's leg, she didn't respond except to shift away from him (unless this was clever editing, it looked real to me).  That tells me that he's done this to her before, possibly several times.  If it was the first time, I feel like she would've jumped and looked around for the source of the touch.  She didn't, and she knew that Dan was on the ground next to her, so she knew exactly where the touch came from.  She was probably trying to pretend it hadn't happened, and didn't want to call attention to it during the merge feast.  I can understand her mindset here, sad as it is.

That was Elizabeth, y'know, the one that's all good with all things Dan.

(I matched the shorts and shoes on that leg to what Elizabeth was wearing in that scene. )

[Eolivet]

I'm desperately trying to psych myself up for this week's episode, so I'll just bring in Zeke's well-thought out, perfectly stated tweet here. He describes the situation better in 280 characters than I've done in eight posts:

[nutty1]

I wonder how all parties involved felt after watching those 2 episodes. I wonder if any of them realize how they wronged Janet. 

[GaT]

On 11/16/2019 at 11:31 AM, Ms Blue Jay said:

I don't know if casting is to blame.  How could they know if Dan was like this?  If they knew, and cast Dan anyway then yes that's disgusting.  

Dan is a talent manager, he's in their business, nobody ever heard anything about him?

[Nashville]

20 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

"Clear" is a subjective opinion.  It wasn't clear to me at all.  [Kellee] seemed tortured by the whole thing.  

Kellee was definitely feeling tortured - and for good reason - and for reasons absolutely analogous to workplace situations outside the narrow confines of Survivor.  Kellee’s dilemma was that faced by every victim of workplace sexual harassment over the years; tolerate the hostile atmosphere and hope it somehow resolves itself, or voice a complaint and run the risk of consequential backlash.

20 hours ago, laurakaye said:

With all due respect, it shouldn't have been her choice to make.

If Production is operating in accordance with U. S. laws and regulations - which, from multiple prior discussions on different topics, I believe they are - then it wasn’t.  More below.

19 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think that in an office situation the victim would be asked what they want done.  If the victim just wants an apology and the behavior to stop, the offender might not get fired.  Also, I'm not sure what Dan did to Kellee would be a fireable offense, though.   What he did to some of the other women would certainly be, if they complained, but they didn't.   

I also believe the victim must do more than file a complaint, especially in a case that leads to termination  The victim would be interviewed, probably multiple times and asked to provide whatever corroborating evidence she has.  

Not meaning to be rude, @Bryce Lynch, but there’s a whole lotta conjecture here.  Submission of complaints, the process for resolution of complaints, penalties, etc., would all have to be documented and detailed in a formal company sexual harassment policy.  Also, the company would have to maintain records documenting (a) the policy was published company-wide, and (b) each employee had been given (and acknowledged receipt of) the policy.  What you outline may certainly be within the realm of possibility as to whatever process an individual company may choose to document as its SOP, but it is by no means anywhere near a definitive template.

A couple of things about sexual harassment in the United States:

1. It’s a civil - not criminal - issue; codified primarily in the Civil Rights Act of 1991’s modifications to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expanded the rights of workplace discrimination and harassment victims to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
2. This may come as a surprise to some, but the defendant in such cases isn’t usually the harasser - it’s the company which allowed the harassing behavior to go unchecked in the workplace.  Corporate punitive action against the harasser (fines, demotion, termination, etc.) can be fair game as part of any damage settlement, though.

Quote

Also, this is not an office situation.

No, Survivor is definitely not an office environment - but it could be considered a workplace environment.  CBS’s lawyers can cadge around all they want about whether the contestants are considered employees, or independent contractors, or whatever - but the contestants all provide a service to CBS for which they receive compensation.  So there’s not much wiggle room to deny the Survivor set is a workplace environment, albeit a radically unconventional one.

Quote

  On Survivor, all the players have input on who goes home.  It is a true Democracy, which in this case might make one think that true Democracy might be overrated.  Also, depending upon the situation, Kellee might have not thought it was in her best interest to eject Dan.  Also, a lot more touching goes on in Survivor than in an office, so the lines of what is and what is not appropriate are not as clear.   

That said, I would have no problem if Dan were to be ejected.  In fact, I would love to see it happen.   I just don't think it is so clear cut that production did wrong by not ejecting him against the victim's wishes.  

Here’s the thing, though: in any workplace with a properly configured sexual harassment policy in place a formal victim complaint definitely does engage the process, but it’s not always required - and a management representative either directly witnessing or seeing evidence of violation of the company policy (such as video) is required to take action regardless, else the company is liable.  And the question of punitive action is never based upon a question of whether or not the victim wants a charge prosecuted; it’s whether the instigator’s actions rose to the level of breaking company policy - and that’s on management to evaluate and decide.

So, with all that being said: in view of the video evidence verifying Kellee’s statements, the onus was on management (in the form of Production) to decide to pursue this issue, not Kellee - and Production’s indecisive response could definitely cost them on down the road, should Kellee choose to pursue the matter.  Either Production didn’t have a workplace sexual harassment policy in place (which would be fucking stupid beyond belief for ANY corporate entity operating in the U. S. over the past 20-odd years), or they did a shit job of following it (which is WAY more likely).

[RescueMom]

Kass was a guest on Rob C's podcast a week or two ago (before last week's episode aired), and she argued strongly that Survivor needs more women in production roles.  I keep wondering how that interview with Kellee might have differed if the producer she was talking to was female (or if a large percent of the people in power who later discussed what to do about it were female). Maybe nothing would have changed, but I think it is just as likely that a woman would have perceived the effects Dan's behavior could have differently than a man would. 

As to if this constitutes harassment or assault, I believe sexual harassment and assault at their root are acts of power, domination, and control. In varying degrees certainly, but the root is the same. If someone touches you and you clearly say "no," the next touch is more than just a touch - it is saying "I will do whatever I want to you, and you can't stop me." In some ways it is a harder decision to say something if he contact is not overtly sexual, because then we get the whole "he was only brushing aside her hair" discussion, when the true issue is violation. It's an awful place to have to decide between rocking the boat (which has its own unpleasant consequences) or allowing someone to continue to assert power over you in a situation like this.

[laurakaye]

The rest of the season will be very interesting.  This was filmed months ago and since it's only airing now, CBS/Probst are just now seeing the very strong reactions to how they handled things.  I have been binging all of the RHAP podcasts and by and large, the opinions are that the powers that be dropped the ball here big time.  Emotions are very raw.  But whatever happens for the rest of the season has already happened.  I wonder what it must be like for the players, knowing what we don't yet know, and potentially knowing that outrage is only going to get worse from here on out based on the outcome of this season.  Are they bracing for the rest of the storm?  Or do they think the worst has passed?

I follow Survivor on Instagram and I was kind of jarred to see a post this morning, asking fans to remember to vote for Fan Favorite.  I was like, are you kidding?  But the show is moving forward and I guess now the viewers can either stop watching or brace themselves for whatever happens next.  As a forever fan of this show, it's a singularly weird way to watch this show going forward.  

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

Kellee was definitely feeling tortured - and for good reason - and for reasons absolutely analogous to workplace situations outside the narrow confines of Survivor.  Kellee’s dilemma was that faced by every victim of workplace sexual harassment over the years; tolerate the hostile atmosphere and hope it somehow resolves itself, or voice a complaint and run the risk of consequential backlash.

If Production is operating in accordance with U. S. laws and regulations - which, from multiple prior discussions on different topics, I believe they are - then it wasn’t.  More below.

Not meaning to be rude, @Bryce Lynch, but there’s a whole lotta conjecture here.  Submission of complaints, the process for resolution of complaints, penalties, etc., would all have to be documented and detailed in a formal company sexual harassment policy.  Also, the company would have to maintain records documenting (a) the policy was published company-wide, and (b) each employee had been given (and acknowledged receipt of) the policy.  What you outline may certainly be within the realm of possibility as to whatever process an individual company may choose to document as its SOP, but it is by no means anywhere near a definitive template.

A couple of things about sexual harassment in the United States:

1. It’s a civil - not criminal - issue; codified primarily in the Civil Rights Act of 1991’s modifications to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expanded the rights of workplace discrimination and harassment victims to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
2. This may come as a surprise to some, but the defendant in such cases isn’t usually the harasser - it’s the company which allowed the harassing behavior to go unchecked in the workplace.  Corporate punitive action against the harasser (fines, demotion, termination, etc.) can be fair game as part of any damage settlement, though.

No, Survivor is definitely not an office environment - but it could be considered a workplace environment.  CBS’s lawyers can cadge around all they want about whether the contestants are considered employees, or independent contractors, or whatever - but the contestants all provide a service to CBS for which they receive compensation.  So there’s not much wiggle room to deny the Survivor set is a workplace environment, albeit a radically unconventional one.

Here’s the thing, though: in any workplace with a properly configured sexual harassment policy in place a formal victim complaint definitely does engage the process, but it’s not always required - and a management representative either directly witnessing or seeing evidence of violation of the company policy (such as video) is required to take action regardless, else the company is liable.  And the question of punitive action is never based upon a question of whether or not the victim wants a charge prosecuted; it’s whether the instigator’s actions rose to the level of breaking company policy - and that’s on management to evaluate and decide.

So, with all that being said: in view of the video evidence verifying Kellee’s statements, the onus was on management (in the form of Production) to decide to pursue this issue, not Kellee - and Production’s indecisive response could definitely cost them on down the road, should Kellee choose to pursue the matter.  Either Production didn’t have a workplace sexual harassment policy in place (which would be fucking stupid beyond belief for ANY corporate entity operating in the U. S. over the past 20-odd years), or they did a shit job of following it (which is WAY more likely).

But, production did take action.  They investigated, met individually with each participant to remind them about inappropriate touching and gave Dan a formal warning for his behavior.  

I'm not sure things would have gone much differently in a typical workplace, and Survivor is far from a typical workplace  The ethics and standards of Survivor are totally different than in a real world workplace.  Practically every castaway in the history of the game would get fired if they did what they did on Survivor at their job.   

Seeing how the group reacts to various types of objectionable behavior is an important element of the show.   The tribe members, as a group, are given authority to police behavior through TC votes.   Watching them toss aside all moral standards to try to advance in the game, is often disheartening and disgusting, but it is also informative.

[Rachel RSL]

3 hours ago, laurakaye said:

I follow Survivor on Instagram and I was kind of jarred to see a post this morning, asking fans to remember to vote for Fan Favorite.

I'm so glad they're bringing back the Fan Favourite vote.  Janet FTW!  

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But, production did take action.  They investigated, met individually with each participant to remind them about inappropriate touching and gave Dan a formal warning for his behavior.  

And when said behaviour continued, they did absolutely nothing.  So, yeah, pretty much in sync with the real world.

[fishcakes]

3 hours ago, laurakaye said:

The rest of the season will be very interesting.  This was filmed months ago and since it's only airing now, CBS/Probst are just now seeing the very strong reactions to how they handled things. 

This is like the reaction to Season 30 times a thousand. They badly miscalculated the audience reaction then, thinking we'd love the drama of Will screaming at Shirin that she was soulless and had no one who cared about her, and had to backtrack about what a great cast they had when they saw how much we all hated them. They all sat around the production office, I guess, going, "oh, so the audience doesn't like it when players abuse each other. Got it!" It looks like they learned the lesson, but not well enough. They learned it to the point where they realized they had to handle any potential reaction by addressing it while the game was still playing instead of waiting until the reunion, but not well enough to know that they should actually eject the problem player. The producers are trying to see how much they can get away with, which is exactly what Dan is doing.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

I'm so glad they're bringing back the Fan Favourite vote.  Janet FTW!  

And when said behaviour continued, they did absolutely nothing.  So, yeah, pretty much in sync with the real world.

What behavior occurred after the warning?  The only thing I saw was him touching Noura at TC in his pathetic demonstration of having to touch someone to get through a crowd or whatever nonsense he spewed.  

I guess that could be considered another incident, but Noura didn't complain at the time (not that I would have expected her to, since it was in the middle of TC and she was probably caught off guard).  

As for the Fan Favorite, am I the only one who suspects they brought it back as a damage control move after the nastiness?  At any rate, I certainly hope and expect that Janet will win it.  Between that, and hopefully some Sia money, it might turn out that courage and integrity pays.   

[Rachel RSL]

18 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

As for the Fan Favorite, am I the only one who suspects they brought it back as a damage control move after the nastiness?  At any rate, I certainly hope and expect that Janet will win it.  Between that, and hopefully some Sia money, it might turn out that courage and integrity pays. 

I 100% think they brought it back just for Janet and, while that would normally bug me, I'm totally fine with it this time.  In fact, I would be totally fine if they didn't even give you the option of voting for someone else. I still want the Sia money to die in a fire but, if it has to exist, it better go to Janet!

[fishcakes]

22 hours ago, himela said:

Regarding Kellee, we don't know whether this scene they showed about Dan trying to touch her hair happened on day 22 or on day 2. This could have happened the same day he was touching her and she was annoyed before she even told him to stop. I'm not saying he is innocent, I just don't believe the edit.

You said, "the same day he was touching her," but he's been touching her all along, both before and after she asked him to stop. We've seen him touching her in more than one episode, during events that peg it as happening after she talked to him (as for example when he bear-hugged her and kissed her head after she returned from Idol Island). As for the specific incident of him trying to put his hands in her hair, while I know that they sometimes edit for effect and that it didn't necessarily take place within the three day period that this episode was depicting, I am fairly certain it happened after she had the conversation with him back on day 2 or 3 because when she told him not to touch her hair, his response was, "my hands are clean, I washed them." He was specifically negating the germophobe excuse she gave him. That's what guys like him do. It wouldn't matter what excuse she gave him to soften the conversation, he would find a way to try to make her feel like the unreasonable one. "Oh, you're a germophobe? It's okay if I touch you, I washed my hands." "Your skin is more sensitive than average? It's okay, I'm not touching you hard." "You have leprosy? I don't mind. I had leprosy when I was a teenager." Dans do what they want.

3 hours ago, laurakaye said:

I follow Survivor on Instagram and I was kind of jarred to see a post this morning, asking fans to remember to vote for Fan Favorite.

Did they put up a link yet? I don't see it on the CBS site and I want to start voting early and often for Janet.

[Hanahope]

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But, production did take action.  They investigated, met individually with each participant to remind them about inappropriate touching and gave Dan a formal warning for his behavior

I'd sure like to know exactly what they did and said during these meetings in group and individually.

Some people are speculating, based on the episode and subsequent statements, that Missy and Elizabeth believed that Kelley was lying or at least exaggerating her complaints as game strategy in order to mislead them from the plan to vote out Missy.  so they decided to turn the strategy back on them and play up their own complaints (which they knew were not true) and get people to instead vote for Dan.  Yet they always intended to vote for Kelly because they still believed she was lying and would vote out Missy.

But....Kelley and Co. did vote out Dan, not Missy.  So Missy and Elizabeth should have realized that maybe what Kelley said was true, that she was being harassed by Dan and was on board with getting him out, with everyone's vote.

So not only did Missy and Elizabeth knowingly lie about the harassment (even if they believed Kelley was lying, that doesn't make their own lie a good thing to do)., and then when they saw how the vote went, they still gaslit Janet and threw her under the bus for standing up for their lie. 

So sure, even if Missy and Elizabeth didn't believe Kelly and thought she was using harassment as game strategy, that does not give them a pass to knowingly use harrassment as game strategy.  and when they learned it wasn't just 'game strategy' for Kelley, they still kept using it as their own game strategy.  so two wrongs by them.

[sadiegirl1999]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:10 AM, laurakaye said:

This makes me recall the episode where Sue Hawk screamed at Probst for what Hatch did to her.  It was several years ago, but Probst cannot possibly be clueless to the potential for this to happen again, and now it has, and he and CBS left the perpetrator in the game, and those of us who will continue to watch have to look at Dan's smug face probably until Final 3.

Honestly, I’m all for Dan being in F3, just so that Kellee doesn’t have to deal with him at Ponderosa! 

[laurakaye]

1 hour ago, fishcakes said:

Did they put up a link yet? I don't see it on the CBS site and I want to start voting early and often for Janet.

On Instagram, you just "heart" the player you want to win.  I "hearted" Janet. 💜

[Bryce Lynch]

5 hours ago, laurakaye said:

I follow Survivor on Instagram and I was kind of jarred to see a post this morning, asking fans to remember to vote for Fan Favorite.

Is the prize $100,000 or gift card for Applebee's?