MAFS Social Media, Spoilers & Speculation

[BonnieLass]

Oh, goodness. Looks like Neil wants to be a rap star (lol). Can't believe we didn't see this during the season! 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMIizRpxZeo

[biakbiak]

In his AMA he mentioned that he was an awful rapper.

[Snarklepuss]

I think most guys would be offended if his wife didn't show him at least the same affection she showed a stranger. I'd be pissed if my wife had past hookups but expected me to wait weeks or even months. I'd pull a Sean and only show up for the cameras. It's like being punished for being the one idiot dumb enough to marry her first.

If you want to get to know the guy for an extended period first, don't go on this show.

 

Sex complicates relationships, so if one has any intentions of perhaps being interested in a serious relationship, it's usually best to wait until you're sure the other person is on the same page.  If one partner is really in it to win it, their feelings can get hurt if they have sex wanting it to turn into a commitment.  This traditionally has been more true of women.  Psychology has even found a chemical difference in women after they have sex for the first time with a guy - They develop what is called the "attachment" hormone. This is not just pop psychology, either.  The theory is that because women produce a lot more of this hormone after sex than men, this is why women tend to become more attached to men after having sex with them.  So therefore I say if women want to avoid feeling overly attached to someone who may not be right for them and/or may not be interested in a LTR with them, and based on those misplaced feelings of attachment pursue a relationship with that person which would probably not be good for them, not having sex is a way to avoid that.  Sorry for the lateness of my response, I've had a very busy couple of days.

[izabella]

I have to agree that jumping into sex before you've established a relationship can often cloud the "establishing a relationship" part.  Once you have sex, then things become far more about the sex than about the emotional and intellectual part of relationship development.  And once you've had sex, the stakes become a lot higher because you've already invested something of yourself, a lot more than if you hadn't yet had sex.

 

I've learned that if I want to get to KNOW someone, the last thing I should do is have sex with them early on before getting to know them.  And another good rule is, if you can't TALK about sex together openly, you shouldn't be having sex. 

[Jack Sampson]

Sex complicates relationships, so if one has any intentions of perhaps being interested in a serious relationship, it's usually best to wait until you're sure the other person is on the same page.  If one partner is really in it to win it, their feelings can get hurt if they have sex wanting it to turn into a commitment.

Except, in the case of this discussion, they're already married. That's about as committed as you can get.

So therefore I say if women want to avoid feeling overly attached to someone who may not be right for them and/or may not be interested in a LTR with them, and based on those misplaced feelings of attachment pursue a relationship with that person which would probably not be good for them, not having sex is a way to avoid that.

I'd say that, if women want to not get attached, don't go on a show that requires them to get married. The entire premise is an immediate attachment - for at least 6 weeks. If you haven't had sex in 6 weeks of marriage, it's never going to develop into a healthy sex life.

As I said above, I'm all for waiting...2 weeks. But that's the limit of my patience before I start rethinking the whole fidelity angle. Maybe it's because I'm younger than most people here, or just a dude, but no one in their right mind would stay in a 6 week, sex-free "marriage" and expect it to develop into anything healthy.

Any man worth having is ready to move on no matter how great of a friendship you've developed. He'll think, "Boy, she's a nice girl. I'll have sex with other women, but she's my go-to if I want someone to text late at night."

[okerry]

Except, in the case of this discussion, they're already married. That's about as committed as you can get.

 

LOLOLOL Jack, do you actually watch the same show the rest of us are watching? Good one!

[Evil Queen]

Except, in the case of this discussion, they're already married. That's about as committed as you can get.

I'd say that, if women want to not get attached, don't go on a show that requires them to get married. The entire premise is an immediate attachment - for at least 6 weeks. If you haven't had sex in 6 weeks of marriage, it's never going to develop into a healthy sex life.

As I said above, I'm all for waiting...2 weeks. But that's the limit of my patience before I start rethinking the whole fidelity angle. Maybe it's because I'm younger than most people here, or just a dude, but no one in their right mind would stay in a 6 week, sex-free "marriage" and expect it to develop into anything healthy.

Any man worth having is ready to move on no matter how great of a friendship you've developed. He'll think, "Boy, she's a nice girl. I'll have sex with other women, but she's my go-to if I want someone to text late at night."

 

Well then any man that can't deal with 6 weeks or more with no sex will have MAJOR issues when his wife has had a baby and can't for that long or more. Or when for many other reasons over a marriage. Because this isn't your normal 6 weeks into marriage it can't be compared to how it normally comes about since you have the time before getting married to know your partner. Which with this show you don't have that. Obviously they have picked people that aren't in it to make that commitment so holding off on the sex until you are sure that whoever you got stuck marrying on this show to make sure they are in it for the right reasons isn't a bad thing IMO. BTW, if a man can't have enough respect to wait and really prove he is in that relationship then he will gladly wait for sex to happen and not force it. If a man is so quick to want to move on because he isn't getting sex when he thinks he should then to me he isn't worth it and will expect it all the time when he wants it and only when he wants it.

[Jack Sampson]

LOLOLOL Jack, do you actually watch the same show the rest of us are watching? Good one!

You don't think the guys are expected to act within a marriage context? Have you seen any of them dating other women? Partying with other women? Even if you just want to drop the premise of the show and call it "exclusively dating" for 6 weeks, that's still a huge commitment to make...for any guy with options anyway.

If a man is so quick to want to move on because he isn't getting sex when he thinks he should then to me he isn't worth it

We'd be a bad match. A woman who expects me to wait 6 weeks is unrealistic.

will expect it all the time when he wants it and only when he wants it.

No, it would be okay when you wanted it too.

[izabella]

6 weeks is hardly a huge commitment, nor issue.  There are plenty of people, married and otherwise, who don't have sex for 6 weeks.  Or much, much longer.  None of them expire from lack of sex, lol.

[Evil Queen]

We'd be a bad match. A woman who expects me to wait 6 weeks is unrealistic.

No, it would be okay when you wanted it too.

 

 

Good thing I am married. =P Like I said good luck there because if you aren't married yet and haven't had kids you will learn it doesn't work that way. You would HAVE to wait to have sex again for at least 6 weeks or more. I'm glad my husband was the way he had been about that too. I have known women over the years where that wasn't the case during that time and it wasn't a good thing. Sometimes you end up where you might have a similar sex drive when you get together but over time things can change for one or both. Life happens as well in many ways. Depending on one's job and how physical that can be on the body..well that is another thing that comes into play as well. Sickness' can happen over time that may not make it possible. Things that can make you realize its not all about sex and so much more when it comes to a life long relationship. Relationships based on sex alone will never last when there is nothing else there. 

[Neurochick]

As I said above, I'm all for waiting...2 weeks. But that's the limit of my patience before I start rethinking the whole fidelity angle. Maybe it's because I'm younger than most people here, or just a dude, but no one in their right mind would stay in a 6 week, sex-free "marriage" and expect it to develop into anything healthy.

 

 

I don't know how old you are, but when you are younger, you don't realize that sometimes things happen in life that you can't control.  Sure sex is important, but it's not the only thing, and if it's the only thing the relationship won't last.

 

For instance, what if someone gets sick and can't have sex?  What if their job or commute exhausts them and they don't want sex as much as they did?  As you age, as you go through life, sometimes sex just isn't as important as it once was BTW, a lot of men feel that way as well.

[Jack Sampson]

I don't know how old you are, but when you are younger, you don't realize that sometimes things happen in life that you can't control. Sure sex is important, but it's not the only thing, and if it's the only thing the relationship won't last.

For instance, what if someone gets sick and can't have sex? What if their job or commute exhausts them and they don't want sex as much as they did? As you age, as you go through life, sometimes sex just isn't as important as it once was BTW, a lot of men feel that way as well.

Are we still talking about the show? I'd say that none of the women were sick or otherwise infirmed. 6 weeks is long enough to decide to either have sex or move on. As many people said, Ashley made that decision walking up the isle. It wasn't about waiting to see if a relationship blossomed, it was about waiting for the cameras to go away so she could go home.

[Snarklepuss]

Except, in the case of this discussion, they're already married. That's about as committed as you can get.

 

I'm not talking about what's written on a legal document, that is often no indication of how committed the partners in the marriage are to each other.  And getting married at first sight, it's impossible for there to be an internal commitment right off the bat.  We're talking about feelings here, not legal contracts.  Besides, that legal contract is so easily broken it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, IMHO.   This show actually shows no respect for the institution of marriage by marrying people who really have no business taking those vows, which as I recall are often referred to in very serious terms on legal documents.

 

I'd say that, if women want to not get attached, don't go on a show that requires them to get married. The entire premise is an immediate attachment - for at least 6 weeks. If you haven't had sex in 6 weeks of marriage, it's never going to develop into a healthy sex life.

 

Forget about it being a marriage, it makes no difference that they're married if they only just met.  They don't even know if they like each other yet and no marriage contract is going to guarantee that will happen.  It's written about in psychological articles that most women when given research tests reveal that they tend to need to "feel right" emotionally about a relationship and whether it's what they really want before feeling right about having sex with the person.  How can they know that if they only just met them?  It can take longer than a couple of weeks after first meeting someone to know that or feel right about it, especially from the POV of a woman who is looking for a long term commitment of the heart (not just on paper) as on this show.  That's why I've always said that this show is a dirty trick played on the women far more than the men.  JMHO.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[Snarklepuss]

Are we still talking about the show? I'd say that none of the women were sick or otherwise infirmed. 6 weeks is long enough to decide to either have sex or move on. As many people said, Ashley made that decision walking up the isle. It wasn't about waiting to see if a relationship blossomed, it was about waiting for the cameras to go away so she could go home.

 

I don't think you can decide for people how long it should take them to be ready to have sex with someone.  In some cases it happens right away and everything works out great even with sex starting early in the relationship.  In other cases people have to be friends for a long time before they decide to have sex.  You can't put a 6 week time limit on it.  Every two people are different and every relationship is different and develops differently according to a different schedule.  Even one person through their lifetime might have some relationships start off hot and heavy and some that take a long time to warm up.  You can't generalize even from one relationship to the next, IMHO.  And that's one of the problems with this show.  They have to make up their minds about a lot of things in only 6 weeks which is an artificial time limit that puts too much pressure on them to really make a life decision, whether that be to have sex or continue the marriage.

[Jack Sampson]

Forget about it being a marriage, it makes no difference that they're married if they only just met.  They don't even know if they like each other yet and no marriage contract is going to guarantee that will happen.  It's written about in psychological articles that most women when given research tests reveal that they tend to need to "feel right" emotionally about a relationship and whether it's what they really want before feeling right about having sex with the person.  How can they know that if they only just met them?  It can take longer than a couple of weeks after first meeting someone to know that or feel right about it, especially from the POV of a woman who is looking for a long term commitment of the heart (not just on paper) as on this show.  That's why I've always said that this show is a dirty trick played on the women far more than the men.  JMHO.

It's 6 weeks, not just met. 6 weeks is plenty of time for most people. The surveys I've seen are typically 3-5 dates over anywhere from 1-5 weeks. That's in the wild, with no prior relationship and no implied (or legal) commitment. Why should it take longer for a married couple? Even if it's just on paper.

It's fine if you take longer to have sex - find a patient man and enjoy yourself. These women know they're getting a 6 week time limit, if they aren't comfortable with that timeline, they shouldn't sign up. Same goes for the guys - I don't think Neil would have ever been comfortable with sex.

Of course marriage isn't just about sex, but it has to play at least some role. Otherwise, how can one rationally insist on fidelity?

[Snarklepuss]

It's 6 weeks, not just met. 6 weeks is plenty of time for most people. The surveys I've seen are typically 3-5 dates over anywhere from 1-5 weeks. That's in the wild, with no prior relationship and no implied (or legal) commitment. Why should it take longer for a married couple? Even if it's just on paper.

 

Because it's completely different when someone else chooses the person for you than when you choose them yourself.  "In the wild" someone you didn't like at first wouldn't get past a first or second date with you, much less make it into bed with you.  People are more likely to wait until someone comes along that they like right away, and would want to be physical with relatively soon, so that's a very different situation than this show and not a fair comparison.  On this show the people are matched by someone else, and if they don't like the person at first they would have to have more time to see if they could warm up to them enough to take it to the level of a romantic relationship, and even more time to decide whether they want marriage with them.  Often relationships start out between either acquaintances or friends that get to know each other over time, and in that time they would have to overcome either indifference or outright dislike for the other person before they desire to take it to a sexual level.  This show puts people in a similar situation with someone they did not see across a crowded room (or on a crowded dating site) and choose for themselves, so they have to figure out their feelings about them first before they are ready to jump into a romantic relationship with them.  That's why they need more time, IMHO.  They may not be against the person but just not for them in any big way.  People tend to have more desire right off the bat to pursue a relationship with a person when they feel like they "chose" them themselves than when someone else does it.  It's only human nature.  Of course there will always be exceptions like Cortney and Jason who had chemistry early on, but that is probably much rarer in cases when people are matched by others than when they match themselves.  So that's why I think 6 weeks is often not enough time in this type of situation.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[Jack Sampson]

So that's why I think 6 weeks is often not enough time in this type of situation.

Well, we haven't seen 6 weeks be too little time on this show yet. Everyone knew where they stood by then...most long before.

I get what you're saying, and I'm sure it's true for you. But it doesn't hold up to what we've seen on the show. In the context of the show 6 weeks has been more than enough time.

[floridaskixx]

Omg she deleted some of the tweets but Tres's auntie is being messy as hell on Twitter. There are some screenshots on Lipstickalley thread of MAFS pt. 2. It's funny how Vanessa and her family have remained composed this whole time and him & his family are the ones acting up

[Jack Sampson]

^^^^

Edited March 18, 2016 by Jack Sampson

[Nffftshewasgone]

Indigenous? As in, occurring naturally?

[biakbiak]

I just need to say as a woman there is no way I would go six weeks without having sex if I thought there was anyway to make a relationship going long term. Hell even I thought the relationship was going to fail I would probably still have sex as a hail mary to see if there was a chemistry that could maybe make me more interested.I am not suggesting Ashley should of had sex with David because she was so not interested but I know I could have had sex and if I wasn't feeling it or the other parts of the relationship weren't working I would have no problem getting a divorce. Not every woman needs a deeper connection to have sex or gets clingy after sex.

[Snarklepuss]

biakbiak, six weeks after starting a dating relationship with them (which presumes you know you already like them) or six week after first meeting them (and not knowing that yet)?  Because it's often the case that people don't like a person after first meeting them and move on right away after dating them once so those situations aren't factored into the equation of "not having sex".  How many people do people meet on dating sites that are "one date wonders" that they never have sex with?  That's what I mean - If you factor those people in it's much harder to meet a stranger and just instantly like them and want to have sex with them.  I don't care if so-called "experts" match the people, it's still meeting a stranger cold off the street. 

 

I know of dozens of stories just like mine - I met my husband almost a year before I one day decided I liked him enough to date him (he liked me from the moment he saw me but I didn't know it for a long time).  We had sex on the first date.  He was my best friend's boyfriend's best friend at the time so we used to be at a lot of events and group outings with my friends.  When I tell people we had sex on the first date it doesn't take into account that I knew the guy for almost a year on a first name basis before even going out with him.  We have been married almost 36 years.  I am sure that if I had met him "in the wild" I never would have looked at him twice and we would never have gotten together.  If this had been a dating site situation we may have had one date and I would have decided he wasn't for me and moved on.  It's only because we were acquaintances/friends first that I ever began to see anything in him.  If we had been matched by this show I'm sure it would have been a disaster because I would have decided I didn't like him right away and things would have been messed up by that I'm sure because he would have liked me, and even if he didn't put a lot of pressure on me I would have felt pressure to like him based on the overwhelming pressure the show itself and the circumstances of already being married and a 6 week deadline put upon them. 

 

I actually feel for Sam because it took her so long to get over whatever it was that she didn't like about Neil that she ruined any chances of dating him - Now I am aware that she's a train wreck, but "in the wild" he might not have seen it until after they had a sexual relationship if not for them being matched by others.  I think if Sam knew Neil through friends she may have gotten to know him over time and warmed up to him slowly.  He may not have seen that ugly side of her because she wouldn't be in a close situation with him and he may have wanted to date her.  This is what I am talking about and it happens a lot.  Once people decide they like someone, of course 6 weeks is a long time to wait to have sex, but on this show the people don't even know if they like the person yet, so that time needs to be factored in and it often takes much longer than 6 weeks to warm up to a complete stranger that you meet in your daily circumstances.  It's not even about waiting for a "deeper connection", it's about waiting until you even LIKE the person enough to have sex with them.  This is far from exclusive to my experience, I have seen it over and over again over my lifetime, and that's what I'm talking about.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[Snarklepuss]

Well, we haven't seen 6 weeks be too little time on this show yet. Everyone knew where they stood by then...most long before.

I get what you're saying, and I'm sure it's true for you. But it doesn't hold up to what we've seen on the show. In the context of the show 6 weeks has been more than enough time.

 

I think you're only seeing it as "enough time" because the people on this show are forced to make a decision in that amount of time.  Just because they are forced into making a decision in 6 weeks doesn't mean they are making the same decision they would if they met the person "in the wild" and had a chance to get to know them without the pressure of having to decide if they like them enough to want to have sex with them or be MARRIED to them after 6 weeks.  And it's not just true for me, millions of people have needed more than 6 weeks to decide whether they want to even date a person much less have sex with them.  I am sure I could compile a website full of "When Harry Met Sally" stories.....I love the end of the movie when the old couples tell their stories, always brings a tear to my eye.....One says "she didn't know I was alive, and then one day".....Or "She hated me until one day"......I have always said this show puts too much pressure on people to like each other and that can only leave them confused and making decisions too soon.  I REALLY think this applies to Tres and Vanessa more than any couple because I think there would have been hope for them if not for being matched in this stupid reality show game that bears no resemblance to "real life".

Edited March 18, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[ctbabe]

^^^^

Hmmmmmm... what did she lie about? I hate cryptic messages. Just say what you have to say..

[qtpye]

I can't help but wonder if the ladies of the family heard a lot of stories about "mean ole Vanessa" from Tres.  He definitely seems to be the favored golden child of the female members of his extended family and probably can do no wrong in their eyes.

[Evil Queen]

I can't help but wonder if the ladies of the family heard a lot of stories about "mean ole Vanessa" from Tres.  He definitely seems to be the favored golden child of the female members of his extended family and probably can do no wrong in their eyes.

 

It does make one wonder because at this point I have seen nothing that makes it seem like Vanessa has been a liar. If they want to say something I don't get why the run around. Its like just say what you want and get it over with since its obvious they want to. I have to say I laughed while reading that...vindictive spirit, hateful things. LOL Unless there is stuff out there no one caught and posted here we haven't seen anything like what she is saying about Vanessa. 

  Thanks for posting those Jack. 

[floridaskixx]

I definitely don't think Tres was being truthful about what happened with V to his family. It's crazy how they turned on her so quick after the reunion. Sad tbh bc Vanessa literally said nice things about him in her interviews.

[rab01]

Tres' family needs to get their shit together before they damage his reputation as much as Ashley's was.

Of course, it's not too much of an ask to not have sex for 6 weeks. Anyone who is married with kids knows that there are some much longer stretches than that in a marriage. But, if your partner isn't willing to experiment with being physical midway through the "experiment" you shouldn't be staying together at the end. There's a difference between going on a few dates over 6 weeks and living together (or sort of living together) for those 6 weeks. In the latter context, most people can decide whether they want to try a sexual relationship within a a week or two (and then add an extra week for the presences of cameras).  If you can't figure it out that quickly, don't go on a show called "Married at First sight." Also don't go such a show if you're an introvert or want to pretend to be one.

[Snarklepuss]

I'd like to know what Vanessa lied about.  I think she probably was actually a LOT kinder than she had to be and they're just trying to make her look like the bad guy because they KNOW that Tres didn't come out smelling like a rose from this.  Even if Vanessa said nothing that would have been apparent at least to me.

[CindyK]

Tres' aunt needs to stop meddling. Whatever the case, she only has Tres' perspective. If Tres has something to say, then HE should say it. Otherwise, it just looks like sour grapes. They are no better than Ashley's trashy family.

[Jack Sampson]

I thought Tres dumped Vanessa, what is his aunt mad about? Is Vanessa lying that he checked out after decision day?

[BBDi]

Well also keep in mind that if they have sex at week 2 and then things go south or they lose interest, they can't just stop returning texts or avoiding the person. So it's a bit of a risk, but some of them I'm sure feel like they should try out the chemistry.

I don't feel like blaming any of them for having sex early or not having it - it's very personal decision and I doubt it really determined the outcome for any of the couples.

[Nffftshewasgone]

I just know that I'm definitely indigenous. As are most of my remarks.

[BBDi]

Invidious? Indignant? Disingenuous?

[biakbiak]

biakbiak, six weeks after starting a dating relationship with them (which presumes you know you already like them) or six week after first meeting them (and not knowing that yet)?  Because it's often the case that people don't like a person after first meeting them and move on right away after dating them once so those situations aren't factored into the equation of "not having sex".  How many people do people meet on dating sites that are "one date wonders" that they never have sex with?  That's what I mean - If you factor those people in it's much harder to meet a stranger and just instantly like them and want to have sex with them.  I don't care if so-called "experts" match the people, it's still meeting a stranger cold off the street.

I have never dated someone for six weeks and not had sex be it if I met them on the "street" or had known them in some other capacity and I definitely would not agree to continue a relationship on this show if we hadn't had sex. Everyone is different.

[sleekandchic]

Another thing Vanessa can be thankful for...dodging the bullet of a nasty, over-involved, buttinsky in-law. Time for bed, auntie!

Mature people acting nuts on SM is one of my biggest pet peeves. Today, for example, I had to talk down a 50-year-old home health aide, and encourage her to get her head back into her job. She was all stabby because a fb friend had disrespected her. Over a mutual male friend. Really, people? PLEASE! Just.stop.it.

[sleekandchic]

Invidious? Indignant? Disingenuous?

Indubitably? Inscrutably? Impenetrably?

MYOB-ably!

[Snarklepuss]

She refers to Vanessa's "temper" - Could that be a reference to something private that went down between Tres and Vanessa at some point maybe after he dumped her?  I can imagine Vanessa might have let him have a piece of her mind on the way out and good for her if she did.  I can't blame her for being upset with him because who likes being lead on and dumped?  I know not everyone thinks she was lead on but she may think so.

[CindyK]

Tres admitted in the USweekly article that he failed to disclose that his feelings had changed well before he told Vanessa that was the case, so I definitely think he led her on. Some might say he "lied," but I bet his Aunt would never see it that way. If my husband came in at 5am after not having been intimate in weeks, I too would lose my temper. What does the aunt expect? They should tread lightly because I bet Vanessa could disclose much more. I'm glad she hasn't though because she ends up looking like the mature adult here. Why is Tres' aunt fighting his battles anyway? Pathetic.

[Jack Sampson]

If my husband came in at 5am after not having been intimate in weeks, I too would lose my temper.

Would you be mad at the lateness, lack of sex or the possibility that he was with someone else?

[CindyK]

Would you be mad at the lateness, lack of sex or the possibility that he was with someone else?

At first blush, probably the disrespect of the lateness. He couldn't find a phone? I'm sure it would lead me to wonder about the other things you mentioned too.

[Snarklepuss]

Tres admitted in the USweekly article that he failed to disclose that his feelings had changed well before he told Vanessa that was the case, so I definitely think he led her on. Some might say he "lied," but I bet his Aunt would never see it that way. If my husband came in at 5am after not having been intimate in weeks, I too would lose my temper. What does the aunt expect? They should tread lightly because I bet Vanessa could disclose much more. I'm glad she hasn't though because she ends up looking like the mature adult here. Why is Tres' aunt fighting his battles anyway? Pathetic.

 

Yes, I read that interview, I believe a link to the article was posted here.  And I agree that he lead her on and that she could have disclosed far worse stuff about him.  But there are still those who don't see it that way despite his admission to not telling her that his feelings had changed before the 6 weeks were up.  Then he agreed to continue the marriage past the 6 weeks without being open about his change in feelings.  I feel that constitutes leading someone on.  Some thought he was trying to see if the feelings came back before saying anything and that he didn't owe her that.  But I think under the circumstances of the 6 week decision and in the context of being legally married, he should have been open about that so that she knew going into the post-6 week period what was going on in his head and could prepare herself.  Otherwise she'd just be left confused and wondering what was going on, and that's just not right, IMO.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[Nffftshewasgone]

Would you be mad at the lateness, lack of sex or the possibility that he was with someone else?

Dude. What do you think? Your significant other is more than a few hours late with NO EXPLANATION and you'd be okay with it? ?? Even with none of the above --- out of MUTUAL RESPECT you tell your "other half " that you're okay. It's called accountability.

ETA Jack, I didn't mean for that to come off as rude. Reading it back it seems that way to me but was never my intention.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Nffftshewasgone

[still hoping]

It's baaaack down under - preview of the new season of Australia Married at First Sight on their facebook page

 

https://www.facebook.com/MarriedAU

[Leanne]

I am sure people have moved on but I had to post this. Sam is going on on Twitter that she is "besties" with Sean from season 2 and there was a tweet of them joking around. Not sure how to post screenshots here though. Sean and Sam? That's a match made in Hades! I am sure it's just a little Twitter friendship but imagine for a sec if they got together? Hahaha. Sam would destroy poor little (sarcasm!) Sean like a velociraptor! She would have to be into a long distance relationship though cuz we all know Sean would never leave New Jersey to go to Atlanta! That's ok though cuz as if Sam would give him a key to her place anyhow!

[Evil Queen]

https://www.32auctions.com/MAFS

 

I came across this today. David is auctioning off his ring to help an old college pal out for her daughter that is sick. All money going to the little girl and her family. 

 

Sorry not sure if its going to the link or not and if not I am not sure how to make it. Put if you copy and paste it will go. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Evil Queen

[Neurochick]

I am sure people have moved on but I had to post this. Sam is going on on Twitter that she is "besties" with Sean from season 2 and there was a tweet of them joking around. Not sure how to post screenshots here though. Sean and Sam? That's a match made in Hades! I am sure it's just a little Twitter friendship but imagine for a sec if they got together? Hahaha. Sam would destroy poor little (sarcasm!) Sean like a velociraptor! She would have to be into a long distance relationship though cuz we all know Sean would never leave New Jersey to go to Atlanta! That's ok though cuz as if Sam would give him a key to her place anyhow!

 

They're probably hoping to get a reality show out of it.

[Evil Queen]

They're probably hoping to get a reality show out of it.

 

Agree! Yet no one wants to see either of them on tv EVER again except the few "fans" they claim to have. I think this is another season that should be locked away never to be discussed again..especially Sam and Ashley and they can take the season 2 people with them that think are still grasping at those like few seconds of their 15 mins that has come and gone.

[sleekandchic]

Anybody still following the tweets of sweet, demure Sam? My patience and eyesight are mega, ultra fatigued, so it's possible I am misinterpreting. But it seems that a Twitter follower asked Sam about criminal charges that were brought against her, and were dismissed, 13 years ago? She seems to deny wrongdoing, and emphasizes the dismissal.

The Ashley entourage were merciless against Norton and his past. Wondering how Sam flew under the radar with her past?

MAFS needs to retrieve and to expose criminal histories (good, bad, dismissed) BEFORE selection, IMO. The stupidity of exposing production to future liability is mind-boggling.

[stuckin60s]

Sam has written an article for the RealMrHouswife on Bride and Prejudice program.  She is something else