S17.E21: Climbing Down From Decision Day

[Yeah No]

3 hours ago, Chatty Cake said:

That’s a reach that  the show was trying to sabotage the couples.  It’s possible that Austin didn’t find Becca as delightful as she finds herself.

I think it's just as much of a reach to think that Austin was just a nice guy that didn't happen to like Becca and was doing the best he could under the circumstances.  His lies and evasiveness are enough evidence to show that he wasn't.  And that's no matter what might explain his behavior.   If he didn't like her there were many other ways to handle it that didn't involve lying and deception.

Plus every time we think that the show has gone as low as it can go it goes lower.   We have already suspected for years that they make some of these matches just for train wreck value and drama, so why would going one step further be that much of a stretch?  And we already have reason to suspect that something suspicious was going on between Austin and a producer which sounds to me like the tip of some kind of iceberg there, and that's whether or not there was any kind of romantic interest between them.

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, Maximadc said:

I think any woman knows and excuse me feels when a man wants her.

I have never been mistaken in my life. However, it really hurts to admit the truth, but this is when your independent woman comes out and you let him go.

With all respect I don't think any of us has been in this specific kind of situation so it's not so easy to know whether or not we would be mistaken if we were.  Everything I'm seeing tells me that Becca was being deceived (including Austin's admission of lying) and that the show was encouraging her to believe he liked her either because they believed Austin's misrepresentations and/or lies or because the show was complicit in sabotaging the relationship.  That in and of itself could make anyone question their gut instincts and want to believe the misleading input over it.  It looks like she's finally woken up to it, but I'm thinking it took her longer to get there because of all the conflicting input and her understandably high hopes for the relationship.  

[Chatty Cake]

6 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I think it's just as much of a reach to think that Austin was just a nice guy that didn't happen to like Becca and was doing the best he could under the circumstances.  His lies and evasiveness are enough evidence to show that he wasn't.  And that's no matter what might explain his behavior.   If he didn't like her there were many other ways to handle it that didn't involve lying and deception.

Plus every time we think that the show has gone as low as it can go it goes lower.   We have already suspected for years that they make some of these matches just for train wreck value and drama, so why would going one step further be that much of a stretch?  And we already have reason to suspect that something suspicious was going on between Austin and a producer which sounds to me like the tip of some kind of iceberg there, and that's whether or not there was any kind of romantic interest between them.

I still think he tried. He may have lied but he also tried. I’m not even an Austin fan. I thought the constant backwards hats were dumb. But Becca was so annoying and obnoxious that I felt for the guy. If a producer did happen to get in his ear, who could blame him?

Edited March 20 by Chatty Cake

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Chatty Cake said:

I still think he tried. He may have lied but he also tried. I’m not even an Austin fan. I thought the constant backwards hats were dumb. But Becca was so annoying and obnoxious that I felt for the guy. If a producer did happen to get in his ear, who could blame him?

I could blame him!  He signed up for this show to make a sincere effort in a marriage not give into producer manipulation unless he's yet another faker to add to our suspect pile and that's even worse.  This show has gone down the drain from its original premise.  I didn't watch last season and I may not even watch any more because of this kind of crap. 

Also, because of all the fakery and lying I am much more forgiving of anything I've seen from Becca.  Walk a mile in her shoes, that's how I feel about it.  I am less quick to judge especially knowing that the so-called "experts" (and production) seemed to want her to stick with the show and the relationship in spite of what she probably knew deep in her gut.  That had to be hard to deal with.  Perhaps a stronger person might have walked away from the situation but there may have been other things we aren't aware of that would make her behavior make more sense.  As I always say, "Context is everything".

[Crashcourse]

I wouldn't be at all surprised of Becca and Clare started a podcast with them sitting on the couch together in pjs, eating tubs of Breyer's ice cream and talking shit about Austin and Cam. 

Oh, the poor things. 😏

[princelina]

On 3/19/2024 at 3:14 PM, Yeah No said:

 They were already married and he was making verbal promises and kissing her in bed when it suited him.  After doing that calling "foul" and "time out" every time they got to the point of taking it further is really really nasty

 

On 3/19/2024 at 3:48 PM, Yeah No said:

never followed through on it 

I challenge anyone to make a case that Austin was not guilty of most if not all of the points on this list, even the ones like "avoiding honest conversations".  Over and over again.  I have been saying all along that this guy has been giving her mixed signals to the point that she ended up not knowing which way was up with him or anything. 

The bolded parts are why I can't sympathize with Becca.  Over and over and over again - get a clue, chica.  If she'd have just relaxed and allowed things to happen and see what was what I'd be totally on her side, but she never did no matter how many times he made it obvious.  A lot of talk about "optics" but it never once occurred to her that he was lying to look good on tv?  And because the experts supported him?  Doesn't everyone know by now that they are idiots?  Either she was justs too controlling to let anything go ("Remember, we are planning to flirt with each other tonight") or too stupid/clueless or too self-involved - I'm guessing a combination of the 3 🤷‍♀️

[Chatty Cake]

9 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I could blame him!  He signed up for this show to make a sincere effort in a marriage not give into producer manipulation unless he's yet another faker to add to our suspect pile and that's even worse.  This show has gone down the drain from its original premise.  I didn't watch last season and I may not even watch any more because of this kind of crap. 

Also, because of all the fakery and lying I am much more forgiving of anything I've seen from Becca.  Walk a mile in her shoes, that's how I feel about it.  I am less quick to judge especially knowing that the so-called "experts" (and production) seemed to want her to stick with the show and the relationship in spite of what she probably knew deep in her gut.  That had to be hard to deal with.  Perhaps a stronger person might have walked away from the situation but there may have been other things we aren't aware of that would make her behavior make more sense.  As I always say, "Context is everything".

I still doubt he was manipulated but if he was, by that point, Becca was probably driving him nuts with demanding communication and propositioning him. 

 

5 hours ago, Crashcourse said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised of Becca and Clare started a podcast with them sitting on the couch together in pjs, eating tubs of Breyer's ice cream and talking shit about Austin and Cam. 

Oh, the poor things. 😏

That sound right up lazy Becca’s alley!  A podcast where she can trash talk Austin and use her therapy words. People could play a drinking game every time she says “safe” or “trauma” lol. I’m sure Emily would be their first guest.

31 minutes ago, princelina said:

 

The bolded parts are why I can't sympathize with Becca.  Over and over and over again - get a clue, chica.  If she'd have just relaxed and allowed things to happen and see what was what I'd be totally on her side, but she never did no matter how many times he made it obvious.  A lot of talk about "optics" but it never once occurred to her that he was lying to look good on tv?  And because the experts supported him?  Doesn't everyone know by now that they are idiots?  Either she was justs too controlling to let anything go ("Remember, we are planning to flirt with each other tonight") or too stupid/clueless or too self-involved - I'm guessing a combination of the 3 🤷‍♀️

Yes, she presented herself like a horny sniveling pain in the ass!

[ECM1231]

[Elizzikra]

Quote

Becca was probably driving him nuts with demanding communication and propositioning him. 

She wanted to communicate with her husband and have sex with him. Seriously... so unreasonable.

Quote

That sound right up lazy Becca’s alley!

I have commented on this before, but seriously, what did you want - for her to do jumping jacks during the talking heads? Becca isn't any less active than anyone else on this show. I don't see any evidence at all that she is lazy. And for the first couple weeks of the show, she was recovering from surgery. She runs her own business that requires her to be on her feet for hours at a time, hauling around heavy equipment and dealing with people at a high anxiety time in their lives. I see other "criticisms" of her that are based in fact (she's not rail thin! OMG she has acne!) but I just don't see evidence of laziness. We certainly didn't see Austin being any more active or less "lazy."

I still can't stand Brennan and if he spits out that crap one more time about "protecting" Emily, I'll punch him through my tv screen. But all credit to him for basically asking Orion why he cares so much about pursuing a "friendship" with  Lauren. Those two have no need to ever been in contact again. He wasn't even respectful to Lauren when they were married. Why be so fixated on "friendship" with her now?

Oh - and finding a rental that will allow three dogs (including a restricted breed) and two cats is going to be difficult. We renovated our home a few years back and had to move out for six months. We had three dogs (one pit) and a cat and believe me - it really narrowed the places we could go. It cost extra as well. And the place that we ended up in, while great for our purposes, was not a place that I would have wanted to be our long term home. It only really worked because we had a limited timeframe to be there. Maybe Colorado rentals are more tolerant of pets?

[Yeah No]

2 minutes ago, Elizzikra said:

I still can't stand Brennan and if he spits out that crap one more time about "protecting" Emily, I'll punch him through my tv screen. 

If you don't want to see that then I suggest you don't watch the next episode......Whoops, too late! 😉

I can't stand him either and even more every week.

[Elizzikra]

Quote

If you don't want to see that then I suggest you don't watch the next episode......Whoops, too late! 😉

Oh shit - posted in the wrong thread. Just put it in the right place.

[LennieBriscoe]

On 3/18/2024 at 11:47 AM, Gator Stud said:

I assume Austin has a decent job and doesnt sit on the couch all day with his vape?  Obama smoked weed, so did Bush II and Bill Clinton.  I'm not saying these people were brilliant, but they did accomplish something. I think the issue is that government brainwashed people with propaganda so that many think that if someone smokes weed, they are lazy and unproductive.  But that would be like calling someone who has a glass of wine a few times a week a lazy alcoholics.  There are alcoholics and potheads, but most who drink or smoke are not.

Understatement of the Century, even with 76 years to go.

Three former US Presidents "did accomplish something"? As in "something not even 50 Americans have done yet since 1776"? THAT  "something"?!

Moreover, and not to disparage the others, all accounts say Bill Clinton is in fact a genius. J/S.

Finally, in my 74 years (yeah, lots of numbers in this post), and we're  talking 1960s included, I don't think I've actually encountered "government...propaganda" "brainwash[ing]" us to believe that "if someone smokes weed, they are lazy and unproductive."  On their way to heroin, yeah, there was that. The frying pan of "your brain on drugs," yep. But "lazy and unproductive"? Don't recall that one! 

So I can't agree with the "many think" conclusion. 

Edited March 21 by LennieBriscoe

[Chatty Cake]

14 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

She wanted to communicate with her husband and have sex with him. Seriously... so unreasonable.

I have commented on this before, but seriously, what did you want - for her to do jumping jacks during the talking heads? Becca isn't any less active than anyone else on this show. I don't see any evidence at all that she is lazy. And for the first couple weeks of the show, she was recovering from surgery. She runs her own business that requires her to be on her feet for hours at a time, hauling around heavy equipment and dealing with people at a high anxiety time in their lives. I see other "criticisms" of her that are based in fact (she's not rail thin! OMG she has acne!) but I just don't see evidence of laziness. We certainly didn't see Austin being any more active or less "lazy."

I still can't stand Brennan and if he spits out that crap one more time about "protecting" Emily, I'll punch him through my tv screen. But all credit to him for basically asking Orion why he cares so much about pursuing a "friendship" with  Lauren. Those two have no need to ever been in contact again. He wasn't even respectful to Lauren when they were married. Why be so fixated on "friendship" with her now?

Oh - and finding a rental that will allow three dogs (including a restricted breed) and two cats is going to be difficult. We renovated our home a few years back and had to move out for six months. We had three dogs (one pit) and a cat and believe me - it really narrowed the places we could go. It cost extra as well. And the place that we ended up in, while great for our purposes, was not a place that I would have wanted to be our long term home. It only really worked because we had a limited timeframe to be there. Maybe Colorado rentals are more tolerant of pets?

She wanted constant communication and she wanted to have sex with him when he wasn’t ready. 
My opinion that she’s lazy stems from her constantly sitting around in tears. Even on the couples trip she took to her bed with the supposed stomach bug. I don’t believe that she is a hardworking photographer. I think she’s like that aura photographer in the stupid hat. Just because she has a website doesn’t mean she’s working that much. 
 

I haven’t watched the newest episode yet but don’t get me started on that fool Orion the gaslighter. Who the hell is he to step to Lauren for friendship after the way he treated her? You’d think a guy that ugly would be delighted with a lady like Lauren who is pretty and has her shit together.

I thought Michael, another ugly one but who also dresses bizarre, would be delighted with Chloe but yet again he started that crap about needing more data. He didn’t need more data to have sex with her did he? Both him and Orion need their fugly asses handed to them. 

[Elizzikra]

Quote

He didn’t need more data to have sex with her did he? 

Choosing to have sex and choosing to stay married are two completely different choices. Yeah, they do require different sets of data.

Quote

You’d think a guy that ugly would be delighted with a lady like Lauren who is pretty and has her shit together.

Some people really can look beyond conventional standards of surface beauty. "Ugly" is a really unkind way to describe someone. I agree that Lauren was way too good for Orion but not because she is conventionally pretty. I couldn't stand Orion but not because he doesn't fit conventional standards of physical attraction.

Quote

another ugly one

True ugly is on the inside.

Quote

My opinion that she’s lazy stems from her constantly sitting around in tears. Even on the couples trip she took to her bed with the supposed stomach bug. I don’t believe that she is a hardworking photographer.

Crying doesn't make someone lazy. Some people cry easily. Good for them. She had good reasons to cry. 

All the other "evidence" that you have that she is lazy is that you choose not to believe what she says. She says she is a photographer but you don't believe her. She has a website but you don't believe that reflects her work. We have seen her staff but you still don't believe she has a sufficient business to require that. She said she was sick but you didn't witness the spew so you don't believe that either. I have yet to see one piece of concrete evidence to support your assertion that she is lazy - and certainly not any moreso than her ex-husband. 

[Empress1]

56 minutes ago, Chatty Cake said:

He didn’t need more data to have sex with her did he?

Totally different things. Marriage is about long-term compatibility. Sex doesn’t have to be (though I would not marry someone I wasn’t sexually compatible with). Many a couple have mistaken good sex for love/compatibility, to their detriment. Michael and Chloe may be sexually compatible but they don’t yet know if they’re compatible long-term. That’s what they’re supposed to be figuring out.

Michael may not be conventionally attractive but he’s confident. I don’t think he’d tolerate anyone saying he was lucky to have her because she’s better-looking than he is (nor should he, because that’s cruel).

[Chatty Cake]

1 hour ago, Elizzikra said:

Choosing to have sex and choosing to stay married are two completely different choices. Yeah, they do require different sets of data.

Some people really can look beyond conventional standards of surface beauty. "Ugly" is a really unkind way to describe someone. I agree that Lauren was way too good for Orion but not because she is conventionally pretty. I couldn't stand Orion but not because he doesn't fit conventional standards of physical attraction.

True ugly is on the inside.

Crying doesn't make someone lazy. Some people cry easily. Good for them. She had good reasons to cry. 

All the other "evidence" that you have that she is lazy is that you choose not to believe what she says. She says she is a photographer but you don't believe her. She has a website but you don't believe that reflects her work. We have seen her staff but you still don't believe she has a sufficient business to require that. She said she was sick but you didn't witness the spew so you don't believe that either. I have yet to see one piece of concrete evidence to support your assertion that she is lazy - and certainly not any moreso than her ex-husband. 

Chloe and Michael seemed to be getting on fine. I do think she may have scared him with her fostering and animal rescue plans. Other than that, I think he was just being a dick when he said he needs more data. I could see if he said he needed more time but he’s being an asshole.

I’ll give you that Orion has a lot more wrong with him than his unattractive face and string bean body.

Trust me I’m not wrong about Becca. I’ve worked with younger ladies like her. They always need validation for the smallest of tasks. They call off a lot. They’ll take Covid tests over and over till they get a positive so they can be off for five days. They make a big deal out of diseases that could be helped with better habits. Their romantic lives are always ups and downs and it’s always the guys fault.

1 hour ago, Empress1 said:

 

Michael may not be conventionally attractive but he’s confident. I don’t think he’d tolerate anyone saying he was lucky to have her because she’s better-looking than he is (nor should he, because that’s cruel).

He’s a little too confident in my opinion. Someone needs to take him down a peg. He’s not all that. 

[Empress1]

36 minutes ago, Chatty Cake said:

He’s a little too confident in my opinion. Someone needs to take him down a peg. He’s not all that. 

Michael has a career in tech sales, which can be really lucrative, at least one hobby (boxing), is physically fit, is nice to people and animals, can string a sentence together/appears to be intelligent, and has a close group of friends. He’s also self-aware - he’s said he knows his style is unconventional but HE likes it, which is what matters to him. (His style is carefully cultivated - you don’t dress that way by accident.) I see no reason for him not to be confident. I do see reasons for, say, Orion not to be confident, none of which have anything to do with his looks.

[Chatty Cake]

8 minutes ago, Empress1 said:

Michael has a career in tech sales, which can be really lucrative, at least one hobby (boxing), is physically fit, is nice to people and animals, can string a sentence together/appears to be intelligent, and has a close group of friends. He’s also self-aware - he’s said he knows his style is unconventional but HE likes it, which is what matters to him. (His style is carefully cultivated - you don’t dress that way by accident.) I see no reason for him not to be confident. I do see reasons for, say, Orion not to be confident, none of which have anything to do with his looks.

I know that career can be lucrative but I doubt that it is for Michael. He doesn’t seem like a go getter.

[Elizzikra]

1 hour ago, Chatty Cake said:

I know that career can be lucrative but I doubt that it is for Michael. He doesn’t seem like a go getter.

Well… he has an expensive wardrobe and a pricey car but sure, it’s possible that you are speculating correctly…

[Chatty Cake]

2 minutes ago, Elizzikra said:

Well… he has an expensive wardrobe and a pricey car but sure, it’s possible that you are speculating correctly…

Good investment, a car and ugly clothes! 🤣  Doesn’t he live in a shitty apartment? 

[Elizzikra]

1 hour ago, Chatty Cake said:

Good investment, a car and ugly clothes! 🤣  Doesn’t he live in a shitty apartment? 

I don't remember but if I'm doing the math right (and the odds are good that I'm not), he is paying about $2,000/month in rent. 

I'm not making a statement about Michael's investment strategy; for all I know, he socks away a bunch of money in his 401(k). but I disagree that we have seen anything to indicate that Michael's career isn't successful. He clearly has some money to spend and he's in a potentially lucrative field. I think that there is no support for the statement that he's "not a go getter."

[Chatty Cake]

6 minutes ago, Elizzikra said:

I don't remember but if I'm doing the math right (and the odds are good that I'm not), he is paying about $2,000/month in rent. 

I'm not making a statement about Michael's investment strategy; for all I know, he socks away a bunch of money in his 401(k). but I disagree that we have seen anything to indicate that Michael's career isn't successful. He clearly has some money to spend and he's in a potentially lucrative field. I think that there is no support for the statement that he's "not a go getter."

He’s not lazy like Becca and he has a real job but he seems a little too soft to be a high level techie. He’s said to be a project manager so good for him if it’s true but real techies with money have no problem landing a wife if they want one.

[atomic]

Yes, Michael does work as a project manager in the tech industry. He clearly make a lot of money from what we've seen on the show (Range Rover, bought his original bride a diamond tennis bracelet as a wedding gift and Chloe a Tiffany necklace). His apartment on the show was a high-rise downtown apartment that definitely wasn't shitty lol. These judgments seem entirely based on his outward appearance, but he's clearly a pretty successful, driven guy.

[Empress1]

16 hours ago, atomic said:

These judgments seem entirely based on his outward appearance

And in tech, Michael’s appearance isn’t unusual. He’s not in a buttoned-up industry like law or finance where he has to be in suits - likely at least in part because he knows himself well enough to know that that’s not his thing.

Edited March 22 by Empress1

[Hip-to-be-Square]

    My issue with this show is that it puts completely unnecessary stress on contestants by forcing arranged marriages.  The contestants gradually start to look and sound like the absolute worst versions of themselves because that's what this show does to them.  Becca was so bright and cheerful, and now she is seen crying all of the time about Austin.  Chloe, who is all about keeping up appearances was discovered on Wednesday's episode looking depressed and sleeping during the day in a dark room, zero makeup, braless in matronly pajamas 😕. It's called "Married at First Sight", but I think the title should be "Marriage Entrapment". 

    These people are paired with people that they wouldn't naturally choose in the wild, they're forced to stay together until Decision Day and the "experts" are useless, self-serving charlatans.  Sure, some of the contestants have some deep issues- but this show really damages these contestants' mental health.  Fuck, just watching this show effects my mental health! 😅

 

Edited March 22 by Hip-to-be-Square

[Hip-to-be-Square]

16 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

I don't remember but if I'm doing the math right (and the odds are good that I'm not), he is paying about $2,000/month in rent. 

I'm not making a statement about Michael's investment strategy; for all I know, he socks away a bunch of money in his 401(k). but I disagree that we have seen anything to indicate that Michael's career isn't successful. He clearly has some money to spend and he's in a potentially lucrative field. I think that there is no support for the statement that he's "not a go getter."

Good points 🙂! My only concern about Michael's finances is that his love for pricy fashion pieces could turn into a potential shopping addiction.  Sure, he's wealthy and successful- but compulsive shopping and fashion can sometimes go hand in hand.  

[Crashcourse]

These couples know the deal before they agree to be on this show.  Hell, they agree to be possibly matched with a three-headed monster.  So, it's all on them. 

[Elizzikra]

33 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

These couples know the deal before they agree to be on this show.  Hell, they agree to be possibly matched with a three-headed monster.  So, it's all on them. 

At least that would be something new.

[StatisticalOutlier]

7 hours ago, Hip-to-be-Square said:

they're forced to stay together until Decision Day

Apparently not.

[Hip-to-be-Square]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Apparently not.

You're right! I don't know what I was thinking while writing that post- I was worrying too much about the cast members 😅.  They know what they signed up for, they're getting paid for this shit show and I shouldn't worry about them or the outcomes of their marriages!  MAFS should pay all of us for watching the show!

Edited March 23 by Hip-to-be-Square

[qtpye]

On 3/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, Chatty Cake said:

It’s possible but why let it get as far as the wedding itself? I would like to hear her side.

I have heard this as well and think it might be a small bit of kindness towards Michael.

I think Michael is not a bad-looking guy but he is not everyone's cup of tea (neither am I) so I kind of get it.

Though this show is not known for being kind. However, I have heard rumors that they have to work twice as hard to get grooms than brides...so who knows?

[ByTor]

18 hours ago, Hip-to-be-Square said:

My issue with this show is that it puts completely unnecessary stress on contestants by forcing arranged marriages. 

I assume the whole premise of the show was based on the success rates of arranged marriages. I found a pretty interesting article about modern arranged marriages (the article claims a 4% divorce rate). "Forced" was a good description you used, apparently modern arranged marriages involve choice:

Quote

Perhaps the biggest change surrounding modern arranged marriage is how some young people are given in their arrangement. While we traditionally think of an arranged marriage to mean showing up at the altar to meet your spouse for the first time, the modern take has more negotiation. While the family influence is still key—and indeed, it is often the family choosing the potential partner—some people are given a power of veto. "Today's arranged marriages place much more emphasis on free choice," Pamela Regan, a professor at California State University in Los Angeles, told The Knot. "People are saying, 'I'm willing to let my parents find someone, but if I don't like him, I have the right to say no.'"

 

[Hip-to-be-Square]

12 hours ago, ByTor said:

I assume the whole premise of the show was based on the success rates of arranged marriages. I found a pretty interesting article about modern arranged marriages (the article claims a 4% divorce rate). "Forced" was a good description you used, apparently modern arranged marriages involve choice:

 

      Sure, some articles state that arranged marriages can involve choice, but parents can be manipulative and sway their children into picking a marriage that parents want.  Also, I think there's such a low divorce rate in arranged marriages because in some of these cultures, it's very difficult for a woman to secure a divorce and divorce is highly frowned upon. 

Edited March 23 by Hip-to-be-Square

[LennieBriscoe]

When one deliberately, even eagerly, volunteers of one's own volition to take part in an activity, and when one can quit or leave at any time.....

the word "forced" cannot logically be used.

Nor does the term "arranged marriage" fit except in the strictest denotation. Culture, religion, and/or ethnicity are matched key components of traditional arranged marriages, whereas for "MAFS" such components are often ignored. 

TL:DR: On "MAFS," ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

[ByTor]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:50 AM, LennieBriscoe said:

On "MAFS," ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

[Chatty Cake]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:34 PM, atomic said:

Yes, Michael does work as a project manager in the tech industry. He clearly make a lot of money from what we've seen on the show (Range Rover, bought his original bride a diamond tennis bracelet as a wedding gift and Chloe a Tiffany necklace). His apartment on the show was a high-rise downtown apartment that definitely wasn't shitty lol. These judgments seem entirely based on his outward appearance, but he's clearly a pretty successful, driven guy.

And probably doesn’t have shit in the bank. The apartment was a high rise but looked tiny, stuffed with junk and too small for his poor dog and a cat.  Chloe found them a high priced rental and he balked at it and was saying how much more they’d EACH have to pay. 
He doesn’t seem ready to buy a place for his new family.  He’d rather have a closet stuffed full of ugly clothes. I hope Chloe says no.

[Hip-to-be-Square]

14 hours ago, Chatty Cake said:

And probably doesn’t have shit in the bank. The apartment was a high rise but looked tiny, stuffed with junk and too small for his poor dog and a cat.  Chloe found them a high priced rental and he balked at it and was saying how much more they’d EACH have to pay. 
He doesn’t seem ready to buy a place for his new family.  He’d rather have a closet stuffed full of ugly clothes. I hope Chloe says no.

Right? For a guy who brags about designer labels and spending $1,000 on a single pair of shoes, he balked on having to spend $350 more on rent if he picked that house with Chloe.  He's all talk and no walk.  Did you see his outfit on Decision Day? A black suit coat with black suit short shorts and dangly earrings and dress shoes without socks.  That's a no for me. 

Edited March 27 by Hip-to-be-Square

[Elizzikra]

4 hours ago, Chatty Cake said:

And probably doesn’t have shit in the bank. The apartment was a high rise but looked tiny, stuffed with junk and too small for his poor dog and a cat.  Chloe found them a high priced rental and he balked at it and was saying how much more they’d EACH have to pay. 
He doesn’t seem ready to buy a place for his new family.  He’d rather have a closet stuffed full of ugly clothes. I hope Chloe says no.

For all I know, Michael could have robust savings or he could spend every single dime he makes. He could be in hock up to his eyeballs. I was just countering the statement that he didn’t earn much because he somehow doesn’t “look like a go getter.” I think his income is just fine but because the show has gotten away from some pretty interesting stuff like seeing the couples actually discuss finances, I don’t have any idea what his overall financial picture is like. We don’t really know much about Chloe’s finances either. She rents so she doesn’t have equity in a home. She claims to be a minimalist but the clothes I have seen on her aren’t cheap. No idea what she drives. Bottom line - the show really hasn’t given us sufficient information on anybody to guess at what their finances look like.

I will say that if you want to indulge in expensive things, Michael’s age is the time to do it. No spouse. No dependents. No one to answer to but yourself. When I was young and single and earning my own money, I definitely enjoyed things like manicures and buying nice clothes and eating out. Then you buy a house and there goes the disposable income. Oh - and the dog. Once I got the dog, I spent all my money spoiling her (and later, on vet care, God rest her sweet furry soul). 

Even if small, I’m sure Michael’s high-rise apartment downtown is pricey. Denver is an expensive place to live. As for his closet of “ugly clothes” - well, “ugly” is subjective. You don’t like them. Someone else does. That’s why they aren’t in your closet. Plenty of ugly is also expensive designer. 

1 hour ago, Hip-to-be-Square said:

he balked on having to spend $350 more on rent if he picked that house with Chloe

I don’t blame him. That rent was sky high. I could see it if it was a mortgage payment but for just monthly rent - jeez. I would have balked at increasing my housing budget by $350/month more when I wouldn’t be getting equity in anything. And it would have been $700/month in increased rent for the two of them - more of an increase than just combining their two existing housing budgets. 

[ByTor]

Wow, this all sounds quite Myrla-ish. Expensive designer clothing, wondering how they have the funds to afford such a lifestyle. It's almost like there's a role to fulfill every season...almost... 🤔 

[Chatty Cake]

6 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

For all I know, Michael could have robust savings or he could spend every single dime he makes. He could be in hock up to his eyeballs. I was just countering the statement that he didn’t earn much because he somehow doesn’t “look like a go getter.” I think his income is just fine but because the show has gotten away from some pretty interesting stuff like seeing the couples actually discuss finances, I don’t have any idea what his overall financial picture is like. We don’t really know much about Chloe’s finances either. She rents so she doesn’t have equity in a home. She claims to be a minimalist but the clothes I have seen on her aren’t cheap. No idea what she drives. Bottom line - the show really hasn’t given us sufficient information on anybody to guess at what their finances look like.

I will say that if you want to indulge in expensive things, Michael’s age is the time to do it. No spouse. No dependents. No one to answer to but yourself. When I was young and single and earning my own money, I definitely enjoyed things like manicures and buying nice clothes and eating out. Then you buy a house and there goes the disposable income. Oh - and the dog. Once I got the dog, I spent all my money spoiling her (and later, on vet care, God rest her sweet furry soul). 

Even if small, I’m sure Michael’s high-rise apartment downtown is pricey. Denver is an expensive place to live. As for his closet of “ugly clothes” - well, “ugly” is subjective. You don’t like them. Someone else does. That’s why they aren’t in your closet. Plenty of ugly is also expensive designer. 

I don’t blame him. That rent was sky high. I could see it if it was a mortgage payment but for just monthly rent - jeez. I would have balked at increasing my housing budget by $350/month more when I wouldn’t be getting equity in anything. And it would have been $700/month in increased rent for the two of them - more of an increase than just combining their two existing housing budgets. 

You just proved he’s not a go getter.  Won’t even find a suitable place for his pets.

 

8 hours ago, Hip-to-be-Square said:

Right? For such a successful guy 😏 who brags about designer labels and spending $1,000 on a single pair of shoes, he balked on having to spend $350 more on rent if he picked that house with Chloe 🤨.  Get the fuck out of here, Michael 😅! He's all talk and no walk.  I'd kick his pop-psychology buzzword Tony Robbins guru ass to the curb.  Did you see his outfit on Decision Day? A black suit coat with black suit short shorts and dangly earrings and dress shoes without socks.  That's a no for me. 

I agree. If he was that successful $350 wouldn’t be all that much to him. Of course if he really was raking in the dough, he’d be looking for a place to buy instead of investing it in clothes. I thought the rental was pricey but his little apartment is not suitable for another person amd more pets.

[Chatty Cake]

2 hours ago, ByTor said:

Wow, this all sounds quite Myrla-ish. Expensive designer clothing, wondering how they have the funds to afford such a lifestyle. It's almost like there's a role to fulfill every season...almost... 🤔 

I still can’t believe they wasted Gil on that fool. I will say Myrla at least didn’t dress like one of the Muppets the way Michale does.

[Empress1]

9 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

That rent was sky high. I could see it if it was a mortgage payment but for just monthly rent - jeez. I would have balked at increasing my housing budget by $350/month more when I wouldn’t be getting equity in anything.

I’ve decided that this is my last year in my apartment, though I really love the space, because I don’t want to pay more in rent than I’m paying now and the rent goes up every year (nowhere near that much though). I’m hoping to buy, but if that doesn’t work out I’m going to rent something cheaper. If my rent increased $350 I’d assume the management company wanted me to leave - that’s a HUGE increase. I don’t know what Michael can or can’t afford (I really wish the show would got back to showing finance discussions), but I would for sure balk at increased housing costs when combining incomes should alleviate financial stress.

[Jeanne222]

I wonder if Michael has trouble during sex with all his adornments!  He's really something.

Many layers to Michael.

My guess is that he's got the moves in bed...nuff...said.  

[Hip-to-be-Square]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

I wonder if Michael has trouble during sex with all his adornments!  He's really something.

Many layers to Michael.

My guess is that he's got the moves in bed...nuff...said.  

I'm sure Michael is good in bed, but all of his tattoos would make me feel like I was fucking a coloring book! 🥴😏

Edited March 27 by Hip-to-be-Square

[Elizzikra]

4 hours ago, Chatty Cake said:

You just proved he’s not a go getter.  Won’t even find a suitable place for his pets.

 

I agree. If he was that successful $350 wouldn’t be all that much to him. Of course if he really was raking in the dough, he’d be looking for a place to buy instead of investing it in clothes. I thought the rental was pricey but his little apartment is not suitable for another person amd more pets.

Maybe I misunderstand what “go getter” means. I took it to mean “one who brings in a good income and pursues business opportunities.” It doesn’t really have anything to do with whether one is fiscally conservative or not.

I don’t see any problem with Michael having a small dog and a cat in a small apartment. I think it would be really tight to have another person and three more dogs (or whatever it is that Chloe has) but it’s fine for Michael and his two. People have different priorities for how they spend their money at various points in their live. 

I would consider myself pretty financially successful and I would consider a $350/month housing increase to be significant. Could I swing it? Maybe. Would I want to? No. There are a lot of rental options between a studio apartment in downtown and a four bedroom house in a close-in suburb with a huge yard. 

Also, I don’t think it’s the case that financially successful people always buy instead of rent. A lot of people don’t want to be tied down geographically or they don’t want to deal with home maintenance. In many cities, including mine, there is a surplus of rental real estate but not as much sale inventory. What there is goes quickly and at wildly inflated prices. You’re assuming a LOT about Michael just because he rents.

[Crashcourse]

I think Michael is reluctant to live with Chloe, whether they're renting or buying.  She's already told him she envisions living on some ranch with enough land and room for her animals and foster kids.  That is a lot a lot for anyone to deal with, and I just don't think he's on board with that. 

Even if they say Yes on Decision Day, I don't think they'll stay together. 

[Hip-to-be-Square]

3 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

I think Michael is reluctant to live with Chloe, whether they're renting or buying.  She's already told him she envisions living on some ranch with enough land and room for her animals and foster kids.  That is a lot a lot for anyone to deal with, and I just don't think he's on board with that. 

Even if they say Yes on Decision Day, I don't think they'll stay together. 

I agree- and I think whether Chloe meant to or not, the talk of 5 foster kids and a huge disabled animal sanctuary really spooked him.  I don't think that there's a love connection between the two of them and I think they'll both be good partners to other people. 

[LennieBriscoe]

The way Michael spends his own earnings is nobody's beeswax but his. 

As for owning being superior to renting: Would that I had the wherewithal to rent in Manhattan!

"Go-getter"? What is that? Is a teacher a "go-getter" for teaching, or NOT a "go-getter" because chasing the dollar ain't  where it's at?

Tattoos can hinder sex? David Beckham might be interested in knowing. 

 

[Chatty Cake]

7 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

Maybe I misunderstand what “go getter” means. I took it to mean “one who brings in a good income and pursues business opportunities.” It doesn’t really have anything to do with whether one is fiscally conservative or not.

I don’t see any problem with Michael having a small dog and a cat in a small apartment. I think it would be really tight to have another person and three more dogs (or whatever it is that Chloe has) but it’s fine for Michael and his two. People have different priorities for how they spend their money at various points in their live. 

I would consider myself pretty financially successful and I would consider a $350/month housing increase to be significant. Could I swing it? Maybe. Would I want to? No. There are a lot of rental options between a studio apartment in downtown and a four bedroom house in a close-in suburb with a huge yard. 

Also, I don’t think it’s the case that financially successful people always buy instead of rent. A lot of people don’t want to be tied down geographically or they don’t want to deal with home maintenance. In many cities, including mine, there is a surplus of rental real estate but not as much sale inventory. What there is goes quickly and at wildly inflated prices. You’re assuming a LOT about Michael just because he rents.

I agree that 350 is a big jump but if they are going from a little apartment (actually 2 apartments) to a nice house with a yard, it would be worth it if affordable. 
It really doesn’t matter, I doubt he will stay married even if they say yes on d day. 
Sometimes it does make sense to rent but if he’s doing that good at his job it would be more lucrative to buy and then sell if he needs to.

[Elizzikra]

Quote

Sometimes it does make sense to rent but if he’s doing that good at his job it would be more lucrative to buy and then sell if he needs to.

Many factors go into the rent/own decision. Turning a profit long term is only one of them.

When I was buying my house, everyone I consulted said not to buy unless you were planning on spending five years, minimum, in the home. That's assuming you live in an area where housing costs remain stable or trend upward. So if Michael isn't sure where he is planning to be in a few years, renting is the smarter financial move, without even considering other factors such as enjoying downtown life, not having to bother with home maintenance, potentially living in a building with more amenities than a home would have, etc.