S01.E08: Episode 8

[peachmangosteen]

Quote

Claire attempts to restart her life. However, not everyone is ready for her to turn the page.

Airs December 15th.

[mamadrama]

I felt like this one was too short. I wasn't nearly as interested as the Eric update episode of last week.

[Empress1]

Why did Claire need to show her stomach and back to the probation officer?

Her “he pursued me” schtick was bullshit.  She was the authority figure. Students get crushes on teachers all the time; it’s up to the teachers not to escalate it. She was sending him cleavage pics, demanding that he drop everything to be with her, and then begging to fuck him when he did show up. The situation she is in is her fault, and I’m glad her brother told her that. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Empress1

[peachmangosteen]

The whole series has been boring but this ep takes the cake lol.

Her brother was great though. I’m glad he told her she’s in this mess because of her own actions. 

[chuckity]

2 hours ago, Empress1 said:

Why did Claire need to show her stomach and back to the probation officer?

 

To show she wasn't hiding urine to subvert the drug test.

[mamadrama]

The whole time she was getting ready to see Eric my daughter and I were screaming at her. You'd think people wouldn't be that stupid, and yet Mary Kay Letourneau is Exhibit A. That's exactly what got her 7 years in prison-meeting her 15yo "boyfriend" a week after she was released on probation. She also pulled that same "he was the aggressor" act. (For something truly disturbing check out the interview of her and Vili where she sits there and repeatedly demands "Who was the boss?" to him.)

[DrSpaceman73]

This was just dull and boring.  And nothing unexpected in terms of her story, other than her denial about her part in the process. 

At least she finally told him to leave after he showed up. 

 

[CrystalBlue]

This actually aired on Dec 14 on my Hulu and I watched it last night, waited to see the comments here thus far, and figured everyone would continue to condemn Claire.  I sort of felt sorry for her at first; she did her time and can't move away to another county or out of state because of five years probation, and mandatory drug testing.  BTW, I think it's illegal to be watching the probationer/testee urinate for the drug test in a mirror, but am not sure of the Austin, TX laws.

I was surprised not surprised (Reese's Sorry Not Sorry) that Claire still had Eric W. on her cell phone.

And answered the call.

And gave him her address so she could see him.

How much of a dolt can you be?  She truly is sick, just like MKL.

I wonder what "new truths are revealed" in Episode 10.

[tennisgurl]

Just when I started to feel just a teeny tiny bit sorry for Claire, she starts her whole "none of this was my fault I was totally the victim here this is so unfair" routine and I was reminded that she is a terrible piece of crap. She even pulled the classic predator "they wanted it they led me on" card, which is just so gross, she really has learned absolutely nothing from this and refuses to acknowledge that what she did was wrong. Not just illegal, but morally wrong. Who cares if Eric had a crush on her, she was the adult, she was the authority figure, she should have told him kindly but firmly that any relationship between them would be deeply wrong and drawn back from spending time with him, not started texting him sexy pics and then sleep with him several times. This isn't on Eric, this is all on her. I am glad that her brother called her out on her excuses and her shitty behavior, having a crappy childhood doesn't justify doing crappy things, and that her blowing up her life and the lives of her family and abusing her authority as a teacher because she was bored is just the saddest excuse in the world. Like he said, lots of people would kill for the life she had, and she tossed it all away and is now all mopey because she has to live with the consequences. Well I guess she got her wish, she didn't like her boring life and with boring marriage, and now she doesn't have that life, that marriage, and her life is certainly less boring. No wonder her sister in law can barley stand to be in the same room as her. 

What an idiot, going off to see Eric and then getting shitty with him about it violating her probation, because, again, this is all about how its affecting HER. Its so obvious that Eric has been badly hurt by this whole mess, he really thought that this was some great love story and he gave his whole heart to her, while for Claire it was just an escape from her mundane life, something that was just for fun. Teenagers so often tend to deeply romanticize their relationships in ways that adults often don't, so while Eric is holding onto this "relationship" between them with both hands and tearing himself apart with guilt, its clear that Claire doesn't care at all about him and his well being. 

I continue to wish that these episodes were longer, they seem to end so quickly when we are just digging into what is going on. 

[mamadrama]

2 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

This actually aired on Dec 14 on my Hulu and I watched it last night, waited to see the comments here thus far, and figured everyone would continue to condemn Claire.

BTW, I think it's illegal to be watching the probationer/testee urinate for the drug test in a mirror, but am not sure of the Austin, TX laws.

All of the original episodes air at midnight on Hulu. For other shows, like SVU and THE CONNERS, the new episodes air at 5am the day after they air on TV.

It's not illegal here for them to watch you urinate, but there are certain rules they have to follow. The test has to be administered by a same sex officer and they can't be in the stall with you, hence the mirror.

[circumvent]

3 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

I sort of felt sorry for her at first; she did her time and can't move away to another county or out of state because of five years probation, and mandatory drug testing.  BTW, I think it's illegal to be watching the probationer/testee urinate for the drug test in a mirror, but am not sure of the Austin, TX laws.

I think she can move if there is an official transfer, she would get a different PO.

It is definitely a violation of rights. While in prison/jail, you lose your all of your rights to privacy but once you are out you should get those rights back. But it is Texas so, who knows.

I actually saw a lot of nuance in the episode. Claire is struggling, her denial is part of it. I could extrapolate and say that she allowed Eric to see her because she felt insecure and anguished. The excuse was bullshit but I can see someone believing they were a victim too. She has nothing, no one, that's expected. I wish the writers had stayed on her conflicts a little longer, and dealing with the difficulty finding a job after leaving prison. 

At least she told Eric to leave. 

[dmc]

She did not call Eric again.  Stop calling Eric.  
 

She majorly screwed up but people need to see what’s it like for people coming out of prison.  And she is a white woman, it would worse for minority.  No one wants to hire you and you’re basically still the crime you committed.  
 

I would move if she can
 

 

[Empress1]

46 minutes ago, dmc said:

She majorly screwed up but people need to see what’s it like for people coming out of prison.  And she is a white woman, it would worse for minority. No one wants to hire you and you’re basically still the crime you committed.  

There was a moment that I found interesting: when Claire was waiting for her probation officer, she asked the receptionist how much longer she had to wait because she'd been waiting over an hour. I would guess she wasn't used to having to wait AND for the people in charge to not give a damn how long she had to wait. The receptionist didn't even look at her; she was likely thinking "I get paid no matter what, how long you wait isn't my problem." Same with the probation officer being like, "your joking question isn't cute, do what I tell you or I'm reporting you." That's likely not treatment that Claire has had to experience before, as an attractive white middle class woman. She's used to people caring what happens to her and trying to accommodate her if they can, and she's not getting that treatment anymore.

[chuckity]

I had such high hopes for this series .... but as each episode airs, I have more dislikes than likes.

I'll finish it  ... but I feel like it's petering out.  

[Madding crowd]

I came away from this thinking the judicial system should have some sort of path for someone like Claire to build a life after prison. I understand why she was arrested but I also think she was with an 18 year old which is different than Mary Kay who was with an 11 year old. Having to register as a sex offender and disclose her history will make it almost impossible to get a job. Many women would not even have a relative to stay with. 

[circumvent]

6 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

Having to register as a sex offender and disclose her history will make it almost impossible to get a job. Many women would not even have a relative to stay with. 

I don't think she had to register. The woman in the store called her a predator but she mention a misdemeanor to the person giving her the application. I agree with you. Not everyone who is in the sexual predator list is an actual predator.

[Madding crowd]

The woman in the store also mentioned a background check so I assumed Claire was upset at this revealing she was arrested as a sex predator. If she could be charged with statutory rape, she would also be required to register I would think. I have even seen that done with 18 year old high school kids who had a 16 year old girlfriend. 

[dmc]

15 hours ago, Empress1 said:

There was a moment that I found interesting: when Claire was waiting for her probation officer, she asked the receptionist how much longer she had to wait because she'd been waiting over an hour. I would guess she wasn't used to having to wait AND for the people in charge to not give a damn how long she had to wait. The receptionist didn't even look at her; she was likely thinking "I get paid no matter what, how long you wait isn't my problem." Same with the probation officer being like, "your joking question isn't cute, do what I tell you or I'm reporting you." That's likely not treatment that Claire has had to experience before, as an attractive white middle class woman. She's used to people caring what happens to her and trying to accommodate her if they can, and she's not getting that treatment anymore.

Yes it’s awful.  I can’t help but feel terrible when this happens to people. 

[Empress1]

2 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

The woman in the store also mentioned a background check so I assumed Claire was upset at this revealing she was arrested as a sex predator. If she could be charged with statutory rape, she would also be required to register I would think. I have even seen that done with 18 year old high school kids who had a 16 year old girlfriend. 

Which is total bullshit.

Claire said that a "misdemeanor" would come up in the background check. I wonder if it's a misdemeanor because he was over 18? She was trying to brush it off when the store manager (I assume) was all "ABSOLUTELY NOT SHE IS A PREDATOR." I would have been interested to hear how Claire was going to describe it. I mean, who Claire sleeps with has nothing to do with her ability to sell clothes, but there are also lots of people who think like the manager and Claire's sister-in-law and wouldn't patronize a store that employed her.

[dmc]

Just now, Empress1 said:

Which is total bullshit.

Claire said that a "misdemeanor" would come up in the background check. I wonder if it's a misdemeanor because he was over 18? She was trying to brush it off when the store manager (I assume) was all "ABSOLUTELY NOT SHE IS A PREDATOR." I would have been interested to hear how Claire was going to describe it. I mean, who Claire sleeps with has nothing to do with her ability to sell clothes, but there are also lots of people who think like the manager and Claire's sister-in-law and wouldn't patronize a store that employed her.

I’m still not sure what she was charged with it’s possible it was kidnapping too. 

[dmc]

13 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

I came away from this thinking the judicial system should have some sort of path for someone like Claire to build a life after prison. I understand why she was arrested but I also think she was with an 18 year old which is different than Mary Kay who was with an 11 year old. Having to register as a sex offender and disclose her history will make it almost impossible to get a job. Many women would not even have a relative to stay with. 

This and she at least has help.  Some people don’t. How are you supposed to rebuild your life when you can’t even find a job

[FozzyBear]

37 minutes ago, dmc said:

I’m still not sure what she was charged with it’s possible it was kidnapping too. 

I wish they would tell us what she’s actually been convicted of. I’m guessing by the timeline she served around 3-6 months in jail and is now on probation. My law degree is from the School of Watching Law & Order but I was surprise when she said misdemeanor. What would the misdemeanor be? Do misdemeanors without priors involve jail time?

[dmc]

1 hour ago, FozzyBear said:

I wish they would tell us what she’s actually been convicted of. I’m guessing by the timeline she served around 3-6 months in jail and is now on probation. My law degree is from the School of Watching Law & Order but I was surprise when she said misdemeanor. What would the misdemeanor be? Do misdemeanors without priors involve jail time?

I honestly have no idea.  

Maybe she got some sort of a plea deal.  I suspect before she left town with him again she was just going to be fired.  I only thought kidnapping because when she makes the call at the hotel room I believe it’s her brother who says they may be able to charge you with kidnapping if you don’t come back.  He may be old enough to consent to sex in Texas but you can’t just take somebody’s child that’s a minor.  I also think if she were a sex offender we may have seen something where she was registering or when she was talking to her probation officer they would have discussed more than job status.  Sex offenders can’t even take jobs working anywhere near children. Also would she have been able to stay with her brother and his kids if she were registered sex offender?  That’s a question btw,  I don’t know
 

Edited December 16, 2020 by dmc

[Empress1]

She said this episode she served six months in jail (last episode Eric said it was county jail, so she didn't do state prison time - jail and prison are different things) and had five years probation. Eric said last episode that she took a plea, which she should have - she did it, everybody knew she did it, and a jury trial would have almost certainly resulted in a guilty verdict and a harsher punishment. 

35 minutes ago, dmc said:

He may be old enough to consent to sex in Texas but you can’t just take somebody’s child that’s a minor.

He was 18, so not a minor. I'm guessing the crime has to do with the student/teacher aspect although I'm not a lawyer. Her charge could be, like, third-degree sexual abuse, which I think is a misdemeanor. I assume she's on the sex offender registry - I am not sure if that's a permanent thing.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Empress1

[DangerousMinds]

9 hours ago, circumvent said:

I don't think she had to register. The woman in the store called her a predator but she mention a misdemeanor to the person giving her the application. I agree with you. Not everyone who is in the sexual predator list is an actual predator.

I think what she did was horrible and that she shouldn’t be able to teach or work with kids anymore. But - it’s a different situation than someone who has repeatedly raped younger children. I feel badly for her that it’s so difficult to get a job. She’s not going to hurt anyone working in retail.

[dmc]

43 minutes ago, Empress1 said:

She said this episode she served six months in jail (last episode Eric said it was county jail, so she didn't do state prison time - jail and prison are different things) and had five years probation. Eric said last episode that she took a plea, which she should have - she did it, everybody knew she did it, and a jury trial would have almost certainly resulted in a guilty verdict and a harsher punishment. 

He was 18, so not a minor. I'm guessing the crime has to do with the student/teacher aspect although I'm not a lawyer. Her charge could be, like, third-degree sexual abuse, which I think is a misdemeanor. I assume she's on the sex offender registry - I am not sure if that's a permanent thing.

He’s 18?  I guess it’s completely reasonable you could be 18 as a senior in high school.  I wasn’t personally though. 
 

If he’s over the age of consent and it’s not statutory rape but it’s possible they could have argued that it wasn’t consensual because if she was in a powerful position.  
 

I feel like we should not have to guess they should’ve just told us. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by dmc

[CrystalBlue]

3 hours ago, dmc said:

I’m still not sure what she was charged with it’s possible it was kidnapping too. 

People don't get just six months in the pokey for kidnapping.  I don't think we know what actual criminal code violations Claire was charged with, what deal was hashed out between her attorney and the prosecutor.  I don't recall anything about having to register as a sex offender.  She could have been prosecuted for the abuse of authority aspect of the teacher-student relationship and not an actual sex crime.

[CrystalBlue]

I did some research and Claire (if this was real life) could request a transfer of probation to a different county.  With that being said, I would think she would have to demonstrate that she has the ability to support herself, i.e., has a job, or else Matt will be supporting her through spousal support (alimony) for a period of time, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

If Claire returns to her maiden name, perhaps she'd have a better chance of making it without the baggage of being "that woman."  Claire can find a job, if not working for a nonjudgmental employer, maybe freelance or start her own small business.

[dmc]

9 minutes ago, CrystalBlue said:

People don't get just six months in the pokey for kidnapping.  I don't think we know what actual criminal code violations Claire was charged with, what deal was hashed out between her attorney and the prosecutor.  I don't recall anything about having to register as a sex offender.  She could have been prosecuted for the abuse of authority aspect of the teacher-student relationship and not an actual sex crime.

Yes if she were convicted of kidnapping she would’ve gotten more time but charged with kidnapping could’ve meant she accepted a plea deal for lesser charge. 

[Empress1]

50 minutes ago, dmc said:

He’s 18?  I guess it’s completely reasonable you could be 18 as a senior in high school.  I wasn’t personally though.

Most people are in the US. My parents both graduated from high school at 17 (mom skipped a grade in elementary school, dad started kindergarten at age 4) but the average US high school senior turns 18 at some point during senior year. The show also made a point of saying Eric was 18 - the weekend trip Claire and Eric went on was to celebrate his 18th birthday and when Claire told her fellow teacher who she was sleeping with, she said "he's 18!" as though it would absolve her.

[CrystalBlue]

13 minutes ago, dmc said:

Yes if she were convicted of kidnapping she would’ve gotten more time but charged with kidnapping could’ve meant she accepted a plea deal for lesser charge. 

I thought Eric had already turned 18 when they went to the no tell motel.  Happy Birthday at the Ranch episode (No. 5)  was halfway through the series before this episode.  Unless Claire tied him up or held a weapon on him, he went of his own free will.  And we know that didn't happen.  I don't see how kidnapping could have been a factor.

Edited December 16, 2020 by CrystalBlue

[SunnyBeBe]

I haven't watched this episode yet, but, wanted to comment on the questions about the misdemeanor.  Sometimes, in negotiating a plea deal with crimes against children, they will allow a plea to Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  In my state, that's a misdemeanor.  

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-316.1.pdf

[mamadrama]

8 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

I thought Eric had already turned 18 when they went to the no tell motel.  Happy Birthday at the Ranch episode (No. 5)  was halfway through the series before this episode.  Unless Claire tied him up or held a weapon on him, he went of his own free will.  And we know that didn't happen.  I don't see how kidnapping could have been a factor.

I don't see how either. He was 18 at the Bate's. 

[SunnyBeBe]

I thought the hotel was first when he was 17.  He turned 18 when they went away to that cabin for his birthday.  

[dmc]

9 hours ago, mamadrama said:

I don't see how either. He was 18 at the Bate's. 

I don’t know.  Her brother mentions it when he calls her.  Maybe he’s lying to get her to come back or I guess there isn’t an age on kidnapping 

[jackjill89]

I wish the episodes had been an hour. There is so much skipping time. We really don't know how long they were involved. We don't know what she was charged with. It's like we've been shown bits and pieces and we're supposed to make sense of it all. It would have been more compelling if we had seen more. 

[CrystalBlue]

11 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I thought the hotel was first when he was 17.  He turned 18 when they went away to that cabin for his birthday.  

Out at the Ranch for Eric's 18th was Ep. 5.  Ep. 6 was when Claire and Eric ran away to the motel, at which time Claire's brother Nate called her yelling about don't do this and it could be construed as kidnapping, either because he figured Eric was still 17 and didn't get a chance to send him a birthday card, or just to scare some sense into his sister.

The episodes were one after the other so it's confusing when looking back recalling the intense love affair shit show.

[SunnyBeBe]

Hmmm...oh. I was thinking they stayed at a hotel prior to that.  I guess it was all happening in the car. 

[IndianPaintbrush]

My state has a law that children over the age of 18 who are still attending high school are eligible for child support. I don't know if this applies to the age of consent as well. But it seems like the fact that Eric was still in high school and living with a parent should have been a factor in whatever she was charged with. 

It was weird not to see Matt in this episode, even though we got several mentions of how he's not doing great.

[Blakeston]

On 12/16/2020 at 12:27 PM, Empress1 said:

Claire said that a "misdemeanor" would come up in the background check. I wonder if it's a misdemeanor because he was over 18? She was trying to brush it off when the store manager (I assume) was all "ABSOLUTELY NOT SHE IS A PREDATOR." I would have been interested to hear how Claire was going to describe it. I mean, who Claire sleeps with has nothing to do with her ability to sell clothes, but there are also lots of people who think like the manager and Claire's sister-in-law and wouldn't patronize a store that employed her.

I assumed Logan's mother (the outraged woman in the store) was just another customer, because she was carrying her purse around.

Re: Claire's crime, it's illegal in Texas for a high school teacher to have sex with a student, even if the student is 18, so I'm guessing she either pled guilty to that, or to a lesser charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor (because he was 17 when they began sleeping together).

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is generally a misdemeanor, and sex offenders will sometimes plead guilty to it as part of a plea deal, so it would make sense here.

There could also be a kidnapping charge for when he was underage and they went places together - like if he was 17 when they left for that ranch. (I think he was still 17 when they left, even though he was 18 when they came back.)

I don't think the motel excursion could legally be considered kidnapping, though. When they went to the motel, Eric was 18 and he consented to skipping town with her - so I don't see how that could be considered kidnapping, unless there's some law that says it's automatically kidnapping for a teacher to go to any unauthorized place with an adult student. (I've never heard of such a law, but it's possible.)

But because there was a plea deal involved, and she got out of jail as quickly as she did, I don't think kidnapping charges were part of the deal.

Claire getting a free scone at the food truck was interesting. I guess they wanted to show us that Claire still has the privilege of a pretty white woman (so long as she's around people who don't know her past), and getting that treatment again made her think she'd get her life back. Which gave her the confidence to apply at that store - until reality set back in.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Blakeston

[Empress1]

16 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

Claire getting a free scone at the food truck was interesting. I guess they wanted to show us that Claire still has the privilege of a pretty white woman (so long as she's around people who don't know her past), and getting that treatment again made her think she'd get her life back. Which gave her the confidence to apply at that store - until reality set back in.

Yes, it was interesting to see that juxtaposed with the scene at the probation office, where she was just another convict.

[circumvent]

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

Claire getting a free scone at the food truck was interesting. I guess they wanted to show us that Claire still has the privilege of a pretty white woman (so long as she's around people who don't know her past), and getting that treatment again made her think she'd get her life back. Which gave her the confidence to apply at that store - until reality set back in.

I think it is more the privilege of anonymity more than race, but I get your point. People who don't know her will treat her like they might have done before. Maybe to make a counterpoint to the reaction in the store, with the women who knew her story.

[mamadrama]

On 12/17/2020 at 10:53 AM, dmc said:

I don’t know.  Her brother mentions it when he calls her.  Maybe he’s lying to get her to come back or I guess there isn’t an age on kidnapping 

The timeline on the show is: 18th birthday at the cabin-Mara gets drunk and spills the beans to her co-worker-social services show up at Eric's house-she tells her husband-they run away to motel. The next scene we see (episode 7) is FF several months to him in college.

Neither the statutory rape nor the motel stay *should* be illegal since age of consent is 17 in Texas. It must be the abuse of power thing. They've been almost intentionally vague about her charges.

[showme]

I feel so sorry for Claire, love is love. She paid a heavy price for being in love with her student, even though he was already above the legal age of consent when he pursued her. It was stupid of her to take a drive with him ever after all hell has broken lose. She is 30 and should know that they can't just "drive off", as if it could be that easy. She made it hard for herself for nothing.

[IndianPaintbrush]

Was she "in love" with him though? I saw a woman who was acting out due to unresolved issues in her life, not someone who really cared about Eric's well-being. 

[CrystalBlue]

No way was Claire truly in love with Eric.  She took an opportunity that was presented to her and ignored the fact that it broke boundaries, all for the thrill.  I kind of think Claire is hypersexual.

[BlackberryJam]

Sorry for Claire? Not even a little. She preyed on a vulnerable boy.

[Bethanne]

On 12/16/2020 at 1:09 PM, FozzyBear said:

I wish they would tell us what she’s actually been convicted of. I’m guessing by the timeline she served around 3-6 months in jail and is now on probation. My law degree is from the School of Watching Law & Order but I was surprise when she said misdemeanor. What would the misdemeanor be? Do misdemeanors without priors involve jail time?

I felt like this was incredibly lazy writing. The time skip, which completely glossed over any bit of the fallout from the report, did nothing to advance the story—in fact it removed me from it. It was also ridiculous that they never followed up with the teacher friend storyline .

On 12/19/2020 at 10:41 AM, Blakeston said:

I assumed Logan's mother (the outraged woman in the store) was just another customer, because she was carrying her purse around.

If that is the case then her dramatic, busybody ass needs to stay in her lane even more than I previously thought. I wanted to slap her when she was so over the top in the kitchen with manchild Logan when she was on the phone with her other Karen friend. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Bethanne