The Bachelorette in the Media

[fib]

12 hours ago, Kira53 said:

Well most accomplised women who didn't get married before their accomplishments would beg to differ. To quote from the book jacket from "Creating a life, professional women and the quest for children" by Sylvia Ann Hewlett-Packard - "almost half of all professional women are childless by age 40. The more woman succeeds in her career, the less likely it is that she will have a partner or a baby. For men the opposite is true: the more successful man is professionally, the more likely it is that he will be married with children."   This problem is even more intense in the African-American community as so many women are so much more accomplished, successful, and educated than their cohort men.   Just a fact, no shade.

Things have progressed since 2002 when that book was published.  I think that yes, if your cohort is 40yo women in 1998, who were pursuing careers in the 80s, that yes, a lot of them would be single and childless. I think there are still MAJOR challenges for career women today, the fact that many careers practically require an offramp to have kids, and there is no realistic onramp to return.  And I do think there are still challenges balancing the partner/career dynamics of who has a higher salary.  But most professional men I know don't want to marry a woman who has no earning potential. Many may prefer someone with a career that more easily supports raising a family (such as teaching, so your schedule matches your kids), but I dont think it's hard to find a husband today just because you're a lawyer.  I do think, like any career, you need to put some effort into it, which is still challenging when you have to work "twice as hard for half the pay".  

And yes, it is definitely harder for African American women both in the career finding front and the partner-finding front due to the inherent racism in the corporate and personal spheres.  

Ultimately, the challenge is that normally women have to take some focus away from their hard charging, travelling, career focus to date/find a partner. And the great thing about the show? It let Rachel pursue her career goals in showbiz while finding a hubby.  It gets her both things she wanted.  

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

So once again this board has me being quoted for something I never wrote.

Yup - that was me - I think people use the quote function to source quotes that you quoted... it seems to be a glitch.  

 

11 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Trista has, on the very first season. She was the first one eliminated - there wasn't much cross-viewership back then.

Yeah, but she was eliminated mainly cause she was stiff as a board.  She showed exactly zero personality, while the likes of Kelly Monaco sparkled.  

[felicity porter]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:50 AM, truthaboutluv said:

YMMV but I really don't think she was any worse than she usually is. Yes, she's nicer to some guests, usually the big name celebrities who she actually likes. But even then she can't help asking inappropriate questions. A few days after this interview, Wendy had Karreuche Tran on, Chris Brown's ex and asked the girl bluntly, "were you abused". That's just who she is - messy, inappropriate, unprofessional, etc. And the fact is, she was upfront that she doesn't watch the show and doesn't really care for it or get it.

Wendy's attitude was mostly skepticism regarding this actually working and frankly, she's not in the minority on that. And she's been consistent in her feelings about it back when Rachel was first announced as the next Bachelorette. She talked about it on her show and said that yes, great for diversity but she didn't get why this beautiful, accomplished woman needed this ridiculous show to find a husband. And again, I like Rachel and Bryan together but I can't say Wendy's sentiments aren't shared by many people. 

 

Because being beautiful and accomplished are neither necessary nor sufficient for finding a life partner.  And that's before we even get into the fact, you know, that's she's a black woman.

I'm not surprised *at all* Rachel had a tough time dating.  But then again, I know plenty of Rachels and many can't find a partner either.

ETA: I see a few folks already beat me to this.

Edited September 27, 2017 by felicity porter

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, felicity porter said:

Because being beautiful and accomplished are neither necessary nor sufficient for finding a life partner.

Amen!

[leighdear]

9 hours ago, felicity porter said:

Because being beautiful and accomplished are neither necessary nor sufficient for finding a life partner.  And that's before we even get into the fact, you know, that's she's a black woman.

I'm not surprised *at all* Rachel had a tough time dating.  But then again, I know plenty of Rachels and many can't find a partner either.

ETA: I see a few folks already beat me to this.

But very astute & very true. 

And just how many times has Halle Berry, for example, picked the wrong guy?  3 failed marriages by the age of 49.  A beautiful, accomplished and RICH woman, to boot.  But she's no more successful in sustaining a relationship than an average person. 

Those "blessed" folks have the same crappy instincts and screw up relationships just as often as non-beautiful, non-accomplished and non-advantaged people.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by leighdear

[Mabinogia]

Yeah, but coming on this show would seem to up the anti on picking a bad life partner, not give you better odds of success. I mean, the majority of the contestants, cast, whatever, are here to be on TV, get a career in TV or boost their followers on social media. Not many of the dudes she had to choose from were looking to marry her. She may have gotten lucky, but it is either luck or desperation, not some need to be on the show to find a man. The need to be on the show was to launch her media career. Finding a man willing to marry her after a few weeks is just a bonus

[Lsk02]

I wasn't sure if I should put this here since it's about Rachel or in the Bachelor forum because it's about Nick's season. Seemed more current here, I guess. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/exclusive-rachel-lindsay-responds-danielle-235533383.html

[Bugs Meany]

That dunce is still mad that her boobs didn’t take her all the way to F1.

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Bugs Meany said:

That dunce is still mad that her boobs didn’t take her all the way to F1.

It sounds like Rachel is corroborating Danielle's story about Vanessa, and RS also posted before/during Nick's season that Vanessa didn't get along with most of the other women. Sure, it wasn't the most gracious thing of Danielle to talk about it in such detail, but it sounds like she said it in response to a Reddit AMA question, so it wasn't unprompted.

Edited September 28, 2017 by chocolatine

[truthaboutluv]

5 hours ago, Bugs Meany said:

That dunce is still mad that her boobs didn’t take her all the way to F1.

*Spit take*

There are enough stories and signs at this point, including Vanessa herself owning up to being difficult, that makes it clear that Vanessa was probably not her best self during that season. So I don't doubt that she probably did say some catty things about Danielle L. But I am sorry, watching that date when Nick sent Danielle home and the things he said in interviews after, woman is delusional if she still doesn't get that the reason she was eliminated is because hot as Nick thought she was, he also thought she was dumber and duller than dirt. That conversation before Danielle was eliminated goes down for me as one of the most painfully awkward moments from this show ever. Nick's face was classic. 

Regarding the Rachel/Vanessa saga, glad Rachel spoke out about what happened because thanks to Danielle's choice of words, declaring that Vanessa called Rachel something "very derogatory", the pitchforks immediately came out with many jumping on the assumption that it was probably the N-word. It's why E! picked up the story even if all this crap went down almost a year ago. The situation was starting to take on a life of its own and having people jump to an assumption that Vanessa was throwing out racial slurs is pretty fucked up (not that I'm saying that was Danielle's intent but it's what the situation turned into). 

And while I respect Rachel's right to feel however she does, the fact that all this back and forth, subtle shade, etc. that's gone on for a year is because Vanessa called her a bully is ridiculous to me. As I said back when this first came up, when Nick's season first started and later after the season ended, because the producers didn't show any of it, we'll never know for certain what happened. Because in every situation you have one person's side, the other person's side and the truth. I also never agreed that the producers edited it out completely just because Vanessa was the Final 1 since they had no problems showing how loathed Vienna and Courtney were. Personally, having seen more of Rachel's personality and Vanessa's as well, I still believe this was the case of two very strong women whose personalities just clashed when in a pretty weird and unnatural situation. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[Bugs Meany]

40 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

It sounds like Rachel is corroborating Danielle's story about Vanessa, and RS also posted before/during Nick's season that Vanessa didn't get a long with most of the other women. Sure, it wasn't the most gracious thing of Danielle to talk about it in such detail, but it sounds like she said it in response to a Reddit AMA question, so it wasn't unprompted.

Her vague reply got people to think Vanessa called Rachel the N-word. That’s a really low move (although too sly/calculated to have been intentional). Rachel was good enough to clarify, but not everyone who read about the AMA will read the follow-up. Btw, AMA respondents choose what questions to answer.

[chocolatine]

11 minutes ago, Bugs Meany said:

Her vague reply got people to think Vanessa called Rachel the N-word. That’s a really low move (although too sly/calculated to have been intentional). Rachel was good enough to clarify, but not everyone who read about the AMA will read the follow-up. Btw, AMA respondents choose what questions to answer.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I didn't jump to n-word from what the article quoted of Danielle's comment - I thought c-word, because Vanessa has quite a potty mouth.

I agree that it probably wasn't intentional. Danielle's not very intelligent, but she doesn't seem malicious. 

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, chocolatine said:

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I didn't jump to n-word from what the article quoted of Danielle's comment - I thought c-word, because Vanessa has quite a potty mouth.

I agree that it probably wasn't intentional. Danielle's not very intelligent, but she doesn't seem malicious. 

Yeah I thought c-word or maybe even slut but when I saw the comment, I knew many others would jump to the racial slur assumption. 

[Lsk02]

My brain can't hold too much random Bachelor information, so I don't remember the specifics, but wasn't there one terribly edited group date episode where half the girls went from having a great time to crying on the beach, and we were all wondering what the he'll happened? Could this altercation between Rachel and Vanessa have happened then? If you remember better and they weren't even on that date, just ignore me. ;) 

[dleighg]

2 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

My brain can't hold too much random Bachelor information, so I don't remember the specifics, but wasn't there one terribly edited group date episode where half the girls went from having a great time to crying on the beach, and we were all wondering what the he'll happened? Could this altercation between Rachel and Vanessa have happened then? If you remember better and they weren't even on that date, just ignore me. ;) 

They both were certainly on that date. But that's all I got.

[truthaboutluv]

20 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

My brain can't hold too much random Bachelor information, so I don't remember the specifics, but wasn't there one terribly edited group date episode where half the girls went from having a great time to crying on the beach, and we were all wondering what the he'll happened? Could this altercation between Rachel and Vanessa have happened then? If you remember better and they weren't even on that date, just ignore me. ;) 

It was one of the many little things that led up to the supposed big fight that took place. 

[fib]

19 hours ago, Lsk02 said:

My brain can't hold too much random Bachelor information, so I don't remember the specifics, but wasn't there one terribly edited group date episode where half the girls went from having a great time to crying on the beach, and we were all wondering what the he'll happened? Could this altercation between Rachel and Vanessa have happened then? If you remember better and they weren't even on that date, just ignore me. ;) 

Yeah - It was the beach volleyball date during which Corinne was fall over drunk, Jasmine got chokey and was sent home, and even Danielle M was crying.  It was one of these stupid sports dates where the 'winning team' gets extra time with the lead, which is more appropriate earlier on, not shortly before hometowns.  I think the result was that Vanessa's team lost and she threw an epic fit, and everyone got the extra time with Nick, which further pissed off the people on the winning team.  The real problem was that these were not sporty women who thought group beach volleyball was 'fun'.  The group would have been happier with the 'poolside photo shoot' like Michelle Money got at a similar stage of dating, but the show had already done that to scandalous effect earlier in the season. 

YMMV, but I think it's interesting that the epithet was 'bully'.  After seeing the whole bachelorette season and its aftermath, that might just be the 'slur' I would choose for Rachel. if I wanted to undermine her with the lead.  There's just enough of a kernel of truth that its true enough to stick if you are trying to slight her with a guy.  She has shown some mean girl characteristics. That said, she is also apparently a straight up mensch, raising money for the ACLU and Irma victims and yadayadayada.  But yeah, I guess I can see why Vanessa chose that word to demean her, even if I might not agree. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by fib

[Stinamaia]

Vanessa also called Rachel aggressive which Rachel did not like because of the way black people are labeled as aggressive and angry.  On a separate ocassion Vanessa called Rachel a bully. So I can see how Rachel harkened back to the other time and saw the two things together.  According to Rachel she had avoided Vanessa as much as she could from the beginning.  If that is true I can see why someone she had llittle interaction with was labeling her and sharing her opinion with Nick would make Rachel annoyed and even angry. 

[chocolatine]

39 minutes ago, Stinamaia said:

Vanessa also called Rachel aggressive

Yikes! Sounds like Vanessa was the Lee of Nick's season.

[Bugs Meany]

8 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Yikes! Sounds like Vanessa was the Lee of Nick's season.

Lee had the tweets—his use of “aggressive” was one more tile in the mosaic. There’s nothing to suggest Vanessa is racist. She’s from Quebec, which is basically another country inside another country. They don’t have the same history of racial issues as we do. That’s probably not such a loaded word there.

[ByTor]

I GUESS this should go here, not really sure. 

Peter is doing that Winter Games show...

[RHJunkie]

On 2017-10-02 at 10:11 PM, chocolatine said:

Yikes! Sounds like Vanessa was the Lee of Nick's season.

How so? 'Aggressive' is a simple, easy to understand adjective  that shouldn't so quickly be associated with underlying racism without the context to support such a claim.

Danielle using the term derogatory can insinuate something far more sinister than what was actually said and I'm suspecting that when it all went down in the house, Rachel probably did address the use of the word 'aggressive' as a black stereotype which is partly the reason she felt offended by Vanessa's comments so when Danielle used the term derogatory, in her mind, I think she probably did see it as related to race.

[kingshearte]

On 10/3/2017 at 6:55 AM, Bugs Meany said:

Lee had the tweets—his use of “aggressive” was one more tile in the mosaic. There’s nothing to suggest Vanessa is racist. She’s from Quebec, which is basically another country inside another country. They don’t have the same history of racial issues as we do. That’s probably not such a loaded word there.

We have our share of racial issues up here, much as we like to pretend we don't, and Quebec is definitely no exception to that. Also, we are incessantly bombarded with US media, so it'd be pretty hard for a Canadian to claim to not understand the connotations of that particular word. That part maybe less so in Quebec, because of the push for French, but still. I'd have a hard time believing she wouldn't have some clue about stuff like that.

That said, one known instance of using a racially loaded term does not necessarily a racist make. Just means she's existed in a world where that word is associated with black people a lot more than it ought to be, and has perhaps absorbed that. For which she is not blameless, certainly, but I'd suggest that it's a pretty big leap from "not especially woke" to "full-blown racist." (Despite the understanding that being "not especially woke" in and of itself is a major contributor to systemic racism.)

[Stinamaia]

9 hours ago, kingshearte said:

We have our share of racial issues up here, much as we like to pretend we don't, and Quebec is definitely no exception to that. Also, we are incessantly bombarded with US media, so it'd be pretty hard for a Canadian to claim to not understand the connotations of that particular word. That part maybe less so in Quebec, because of the push for French, but still. I'd have a hard time believing she wouldn't have some clue about stuff like that.

That said, one known instance of using a racially loaded term does not necessarily a racist make. Just means she's existed in a world where that word is associated with black people a lot more than it ought to be, and has perhaps absorbed that. For which she is not blameless, certainly, but I'd suggest that it's a pretty big leap from "not especially woke" to "full-blown racist." (Despite the understanding that being "not especially woke" in and of itself is a major contributor to systemic racism.)

I agree. I would classify it as in itself aggressive and possibly mean. I’m not suggesting she’s a racist but might have stereotypical thinking or was just feeling threatened because of her perception that Nick liked Rachel. I’m not black, and I wouldn’t appreciate someone saying that to me.  I would be pretty frosty afterward. 

[ByTor]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:59 AM, kingshearte said:

Just means she's existed in a world where that word is associated with black people a lot more than it ought to be, and has perhaps absorbed that. For which she is not blameless,

So what was she supposed to do, research everything she says 1st to make sure it's not "loaded?" 

Edited October 9, 2017 by ByTor

[Mabinogia]

Nevermind.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Mabinogia

[fib]

Michael from Desiree's season was on the podcast Why oh Why, on an episode about the dating app the League. Not because he was a special guest, he was just on a singles dating cruise and the host found him.  Its short, but amusing.  

He shows up at about the 12 min mark.  https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/why-oh-why/id775053292?mt=2&i=391986216

 

also, in the next episode, The host interviews (and mocks) Whaboom.  If you think whaboom is probably an  idiot, you'll enjoy this: (the last segment if the show)

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/why-oh-why/id775053292?mt=2&i=391579717

Edited October 22, 2017 by fib

[DEL901]

Kaitlyn on Broadway!  http://people.com/tv/bachelorette-kaitlyn-bristowe-broadway-show/

[Rio]

I was reading somewhere that people actually found Peter's ex on Instagram and were messaging her to spill the tea on Peter :-D I still remember her Instagram name so anyone who wants tea. XComment back and i will write her name.. The girl is absolutely gorge!

[truthaboutluv]

YMMV but this feels a wee bit like stalking. This woman, whoever she is, did not sign up for a reality show and choose to go on television, Peter did. 

[Zahdii]

I can't remember.  Who's Peter?

[Wings]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:05 AM, Rio said:

I was reading somewhere that people actually found Peter's ex on Instagram and were messaging her to spill the tea on Peter :-D I still remember her Instagram name so anyone who wants tea. XComment back and i will write her name.. The girl is absolutely gorge!

Can you post her picture? 

[ByTor]

1 hour ago, wings707 said:

Can you post her picture? 

Her?  

ETA:  No privacy has been invaded, this is a public Instagram.  The picture was also posted in the below article:

http://www.wetpaint.com/bachelorette-peter-kraus-ex-girlfriend-photos-1606340/

Edited November 9, 2017 by ByTor

[Wings]

Thank you @ByTor.  She is a beauty.  I never even thought about privacy invasion, don't even know where that came from.   I just wanted to see her.  

[ByTor]

3 minutes ago, wings707 said:

Thank you @ByTor.  She is a beauty.  I never even thought about privacy invasion, don't even know where that came from.   I just wanted to see her.  

Oh, sorry, that wasn't about anything you said...truthaboutluv said it feels like stalking in her opinion, I just wanted to point out that the ex gf's SM isn't private & she was "outed" in another online article.

Edited November 9, 2017 by ByTor

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, ByTor said:

Oh, sorry, that wasn't about anything you said...truthaboutluv said it feels like stalking in her opinion, I just wanted to point out that the ex gf's SM isn't private & she was "outed" in another online article.

My comment was in response to what I felt was an almost gleeful tone of "l can share her name and private business with Peter and it's all so good and salacious..." Again, to each his own, the whole thing just made me uncomfortable because like I said, the woman didn't choose to put herself out there on a reality show, he did. I get others don't see it that way. Of course there's also the fact that I don't care a lick about these people's past relationships so I don't get this fascination. Hell I don't even care about Peter himself. 

[Wings]

3 minutes ago, ByTor said:

Oh, sorry, that wasn't about anything you said...truthaboutluv said it feels like stalking in her opinion, I just wanted to point out that the ex gf's SM isn't private & she was "outed" in another online article.

Agree.  If it is on the internet it is public.  

[ByTor]

1 minute ago, truthaboutluv said:

Hell I don't even care about Peter himself. 

LOL I think many of us don't.  

I hope I didn't come across as snarky, you're certainly entitled to your opinion & it's as valid as anyone else's.

[truthaboutluv]

On 11/9/2017 at 1:24 PM, ByTor said:

LOL I think many of us don't.  

I hope I didn't come across as snarky, you're certainly entitled to your opinion & it's as valid as anyone else's.

No I didn't think you did. Like I said, I just know others see it differently. I've read other boards where this is common with digging around the contestants' past including exes so it's not new. It's just not something I've personally ever been interested in or comfortable with.

Edited November 13, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[Rio]

Come on ...and the fact that we are acknowledging that she is Gorge is a good thing. It's not like we want to tear her down. I think i wanted to point out that Peter has had beautiful women and still wasn't ready to commit. I tend to think that maybe it's him who has issues? This probably might have played a role in him not becoming "the Bachelor". What y'all think?

[ByTor]

1 hour ago, Rio said:

I tend to think that maybe it's him who has issues?

Yeah, I think it's time for him to wonder oh gee, maybe it's not everybody else and it is me!

[Rio]

On 11/13/2017 at 4:12 PM, ByTor said:

Yeah, I think it's time for him to wonder oh gee, maybe it's not everybody else and it is me!

I agree. I used to think he was cute before but his character sought of really put me off. Like how do you go on a show and decide it's not for you on the very last round? Wtf? Arrghh..i know some people will defend him and say that at least he was honest but i still think that it is quite annoying!

[nutty1]

Ali is pregnant again!

http://www.etonline.com/ali-fedotowsky-pregnant-second-child-see-her-sweet-announcement-and-baby-bump-91187?linkId=44804310

[fib]

On 11/15/2017 at 4:53 AM, Rio said:

Like how do you go on a show and decide it's not for you on the very last round?

He nearly backed out repeatedly.  He would get uncomfortable, express it, then magically (producer intervention) get something that boosted his self esteem.  

Imho, had he been the one Rachel wanted, he probably would have felt comfortable proposing, assuming he felt it back.  But we know things get stated off screen to the contestants  to reassure them, and Peter didnt get that.  

I think we are reading a LOT into the character of this man with exactly 2 data points, during one of which he was being manipulated by Fleiss and co. 

And someone needs to be more than simply gorgeous to be a good lifelong partner. 

[Kira53]

40 minutes ago, fib said:

He nearly backed out repeatedly.  He would get uncomfortable, express it, then magically (producer intervention) get something that boosted his self esteem.  

Imho, had he been the one Rachel wanted, he probably would have felt comfortable proposing, assuming he felt it back.  But we know things get stated off screen to the contestants  to reassure them, and Peter didnt get that.  

I think we are reading a LOT into the character of this man with exactly 2 data points, during one of which he was being manipulated by Fleiss and co. 

And someone needs to be more than simply gorgeous to be a good lifelong partner. 

She gave  somebody else a $10,000 watch that was matching her watch. What else do you need to know? What else did Peter need to know?

She was just using Peter to have two people proposals so she would have a fantasy TV ending and satisfy the preducers.  she was so angry that Peter wouldn’t cooperate and humiliate himself. Now in my opinion, She should’ve given Peter the watch and picked him even if it was just for herself selfish career reasons but she didn’t know that no one, or mostly no one really would like her choice. I do think her choice is good for her, because they’re both fame whores but just not that interesting for people to keep following. She made a big miscalculation of what the public would like. I think she was mostly here for publicity but hoping for a mate. Isn’t that what most people do.?

[Kira53]

 With all the sexual misconduct in the news I have another take on what the contestant that asked Rachel if he could kiss her. Maybe he was so highly trained in corporate rules about sexual harassment he did what men should do ........ make sure that their kiss is wanted. Of course it came across and would continue to come across a strange in the bachelor franchise but in real life a lot of people are going to be asking that question. Can I kiss you versus just going in for the kiss because sometimes they are going to be wrong and the kiss is quite unwanted. She sure didn’t want to kiss or in anyway be touched by the tickle monster and if he had that would’ve been some kind of a mess.

 I saw a few episodes of the bachelor in paradise not watching seriously but the guy that was called the tickle monster didn’t seem so strange or offensive sexually on that show.   Since I wasn’t watching consistently or any kind of focused way maybe he came off weird at other times that I wasn’t watching. It didn’t seem to be just editing in the bachelorette,  although maybe just Rachel took a dislike to him and they wanted to use that piece. The contrast was Strange.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Kira53
Voice to text spelling

[truthaboutluv]

Huh, this is still happening, I see. So I guess Rachel is still not forgiven for having the audacity to not choose some viewers' special snowflake who they only knew from a few hours of edited television. Good to know. By the way, she and equally famewhore fiance have mostly just been living their lives in Dallas. She's very much still at her job as a lawyer and is involved in about a million charities and he just recently got his chiropractor license to practice in Texas. 

 

Quote

She sure didn’t want to kiss or in anyway be touched by the tickle monster and if he had that would’ve been some kind of a mess.

 I saw a few episodes of the bachelor in paradise not watching seriously but the guy that was called the tickle monster didn’t seem so strange or offensive sexually on that show.   Since I wasn’t watching consistently or any kind of focused way maybe he came off weird at other times that I wasn’t watching. It didn’t seem to be just editing in the bachelorette,  although maybe just Rachel took a dislike to him and they wanted to use that piece. The contrast was Strange.

I think you're confusing Jonathan (Tickle Monster) and Jack Stone. Jack Stone was the guy Rachel seemed incredibly uncomfortable with and some viewers made comments that he looked creepy, etc. Rachel actually liked Jonathan and had no issues with his tickling stuff even if some viewers thought it was weird. They just had zero romantic chemistry.

Edited November 18, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[Kira53]

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Huh, this is still happening, I see. So I guess Rachel is still not forgiven for having the audacity to not choose some viewers' special snowflake who they only knew from a few hours of edited television. Good to know. By the way, she and equally famewhore fiance have mostly just been living their lives in Dallas. She's very much still at her job as a lawyer and is involved in about a million charities and he just recently got his chiropractor license to practice in Texas. 

 

I think you're confusing Jonathan (Tickle Monster) and Jack Stone. Jack Stone was the guy Rachel seemed incredibly uncomfortable with and some viewers made comments that he looked creepy, etc. Rachel actually liked Jonathan and had no issues with his tickling stuff even if some viewers thought it was weird. They just had zero romantic chemistry.

I did confuse them.  Jack had date that included the ride in the carriage and Jonathan didn’t get a date?  I think I saw Jack Stone in the Bachelor in paradise, in the episode I watched near the end and he seemed to be very different and not creepy at all.  At least one woman seemed to like him and one twin was insulted that he didn’t dump the girl to be with her?   I just know if Jack had pushed to kiss Rachel he might’ve been pushed out of the carriage.   Her fiancé did stick his tongue down her throat after their initial meeting, but it was OK because she liked it. What if she didn’t like it? Just commenting upon a situation where it can seem very masculine and romantic to just grab a girl and kiss them but if your male instincts are wrong, you could be in big trouble today. The recent news on sexual misconduct, especially Al Franken’s stupidity.  The kiss, not the more stupid photo.  The guy that she knew as a camper when she was a camp counselor was perhaps just ahead at his time asking if he could kiss Rachel.  Sorry I can’t remember his name but I’m getting old.  He recognized the wasn’t interested in him even though she seemed to be kissing everyone.  I like him but then I didn’t have to kiss him.

[Rio]

Maybe it's just me but i will never become a Bryan fan. I don't know...Racheal's Bryan seems just wierd! Like a fraud or something. I can't seem to shake the feeling off.

Even with amazing Instagram pictures. Something just comes off.

[DEL901]

The link title tells it all.

http://people.com/babies/emily-maynard-johnson-regrets-daughter-appearing-the-bachelorette/

[Earlfor1]

Reality Steve has a podcast in which he interviews Peter's ex, Brittany Hanson.  She talks about his push and pull, how she felt manipulated by him, how he told her he was going to do the show to improve his business and had no intention of falling for Rachel.  The website also has screenshots of his texts to her right before he left for the show.His podcast is here.