S02.E12: Reunion

[nexxie]

I think Kathryn should sue Thomas for fraudulent inducement or breach of an oral contract. From the conversations in season 1, it sounds like he promised her certain things (car, house, financial assistance) that would allow her to not work and care for their child if she got pregnant. In reliance on those promises, Kathryn allowed Thomas to get her pregnant. He made it clear in season 1 he wanted a child and it appears he promised Kathryn certain things to get what he wanted. She relied on those promises to her detriment. She has been damaged by his failure to perform. Whether it seems uncouth or not, Thomas made an agreement and should not be allowed to back out after Kathyrn performed on her end. If anything, if feel like the manipulator in this situation was Thomas, not Kathryn.

Surely her family could hire a good attorney and put this all to rest - problem is, looks like Kathryn still wants TRav (or at least doesn't want Whitney to have him, lol).

[cooksdelight]

Kathryn: Thomas you had better marry me or else. Think of our FAMILY!!! Think of Season Three!!! We could have a huge plantation wedding! Maybe a spinoff!!!

 

Thomas: Leave me alone!!!

 

Kathryn: Thomassssssss! Come back here!!!! You are going to LISTEN TO MEEEEEEEE!"

[bravofan27]

Thomas is financially responsible for Kensie. Not Kathryn. 

[jkitty]

Thomas is financially responsible for Kensie. Not Kathryn. 

 

If he did promise to take care of financially (which according to her comments last season, he did), then he should be held to it.  End of story.  

 

Did Thomas utter these promises on film, was it part of last season? If not, it's a he said/she said situation. Who can afford the more powerful attorney to get that thrown out of court?

 

I agree he should provide for his daughter, and I think he will. In a way that Kathryn can't spend the money on clothes or purses. 

 

I think we saw Kathryn recounting their conversations last season in the car on the way out to Shep's cabin.  I would love to see what footage Andy has socked away though.  Obviously, if Thomas never made those promises or the bargain to care for Kathryn financially if she had his child, then my argument is moot.  But I am saying that if, he did promise, legally he should be held to it. Promises and oral contracts are legally enforceable. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by jkitty

[bravofan27]

Here is the thing. no matter what he said, he does not HAVE to do anything. What he should do and what he HAS to do are different. I'm not saying that Thomas shouldn't help kathryn out, but he does not have to follow through on any of his promises. The only thing he HAS to do would be something court ordered. That is just the real world. He is a politician, and he not going to do anything that he doesn't have to do. He has to pay 2500 a month, and that is all he paying.  Women need to be smart and make sure men put things in writing and they are legally protected. That is the fact, otherwise, you are going to spend your life resentful and angry because you believed someone and didn't make them forcibly accountable. If he did promise her things, then Kathryn needs to take him to court and get it settled. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by bravofan27

[jkitty]

Here is the thing. no matter what he said, he does not HAVE to do anything. What he should do and what he HAS to do are different. I'm not saying that Thomas shouldn't help kathryn out, but he does not have to follow through on any of his promises. The only thing he HAS to do would be something court ordered. That is just the real world. He is a politician, and he not going to do anything that he doesn't have to do. He has to pay 2500 a month, and that is all he paying.  Women need to be smart and make sure men put things in writing and they are legally protected. That is the fact, otherwise, you are going to spend your life resentful and angry because you believed someone and didn't make them forcibly accountable. If he did promise her things, then Kathryn needs to take him to court and get it settled. 

 

That's my whole point.  If he promised to provide for her financially if she had his child, she should sue him for promissory estoppel, breach of an oral contract, or fraudulent inducement.  The legal system says if you promise do to something, and the other person relies on that promise, then you HAVE to do it.  A court could very well order Thomas to provide for Kathryn if he promised to do so.  So, yes, he would HAVE to do what he promised.  However, as someone else pointed out, being with Thomas seems to be Kathryn's main motivation, so that is probably when she has not pursued a less dramatic, more practical route.  (Also, getting it in writing might make it easier to prove in court, but it would still require going to court to enforce.  A person is still legally protected by an oral agreement.)

Edited June 3, 2015 by jkitty

[RedHawk]

I'm still laughing at Shep's "Craig's List". Not laughing with Shep but AT him. That list would only have been funny if it were similar to the one Bosawks drew up:

 

I'd love to see Shep's "Why Craig's a Douche" list.

 

1. Never offers to pay for tolls
2. Showers regularly
3. Combs hair
4. He's a Winter and I'm an Autumn
5. Likes Turkey Bacon

 

 

I'd add:

6. Has real front teeth.

 

Feel free to contribute. If Craig was really such an annoyance, then Shep should have drawn some boundaries such as refusing to pay a bar tab the 3rd time Craig "forgot" his wallet. 

[cooksdelight]

The way Thomas said "You all didn't counter offer" when Kathryn was complaining about the lack of money tells me her attorneys aren't doing much to help her get whatever it is she's asking for. I just see a mess all the way around.

[TVSnark]

That's my whole point.  If he promised to provide for her financially if she had his child, she should sue him for promissory estoppel, breach of an oral contract, or fraudulent inducement.  The legal system says if you promise do to something, and the other person relies on that promise, then you HAVE to do it.  A court could very well order Thomas to provide for Kathryn if he promised to do so.  So, yes, he would HAVE to do what he promised.  However, as someone else pointed out, being with Thomas seems to be Kathryn's main motivation, so that is probably when she has not pursued a less dramatic, more practical route.  (Also, getting it in writing might make it easier to prove in court, but it would still require going to court to enforce.  A person is still legally protected by an oral agreement.)

A court is never going to recognize their agreement because it would be against public policy. You cannot contract for sex in exchange for anything. And that is essentially what they did.

 

Even if for argument's sake that they would, a court in South Carolina is definitely not going to recognize an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in exchange for financial support. She never married him and I can guarantee you a family court judge is not going to be impressed by the fact that she is not working and/or not getting her college degree. She has an obligation to financially support Kensie as well and a judge could find that she should have a certain amount of income and use that imputed income to lower Thomas' financial support. Moreover, Thomas wants to split custody so that $2,500 would be for half of the month, which seems more than fair. It would be in her best interest to stop trashing him all over the Internet if she wants a substantial amount of money from him.

[SunnyBeBe]

I don't necessarily consider myself a prideful person, but there is just something about a woman begging and pleading with a man to marry her that really bothers me. I just don't see how they can do it.  Does she have any pride at all?  Apparently not.  

 

And what would she have if she got the man known as T-Rav?  My, what an impressive resume he has.....and since it's common to be treated better before the marriage than after, what does she have to look forward to? How much lower can you go when you are already treated like trash?  Instead of Taylor/Burton, Kathryn and Thomas remind me of Michael Lohan and Kate Major!  There are so many similarities.  

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/lindsay-lohans-dad-michael-lohan-kate-major-welcome-baby-boy-2013301

[jkitty]

A court is never going to recognize their agreement because it would be against public policy. You cannot contract for sex in exchange for anything. And that is essentially what they did.

 

We could split hairs on whether the agreement was for sex or specifically for the creation of a child, (for example, what if they removed sex from the equation and he promised those things if she agreed to be the mother to his child through IVF?), but you are probably right.  That's the whole "institutionalized sexism and misogyny" part I was talking about, but that is probably a conversation for another website (Jezebel maybe, lol?).  

Edited June 3, 2015 by jkitty

[TVSnark]

We could split hairs on whether the agreement was for sex or specifically for the creation of a child, (for example, what if they removed sex from the equation and he promised those things if she agreed to be the mother to his child through IVF?), but you are probably right.  That's the whole "institutionalized sexism and misogyny" part I was talking about, but that is probably a conversation for another website (Jezebel maybe, lol?).  

I think even with IVF, a court is not going to rule in favor of Kathryn. Contracting for a child (barring gestational surrogacy) is not allowed here. South Carolina does not look favorably on anything that could look like "buying a baby," which a skilled attorney could probably successfully argue that Thomas was essentially paying Kathryn for the baby. Moreover, there's something called the statute of frauds, which would almost certainly apply if you couldn't get it kicked on public policy--their agreement would have to be in writing. As for promissory estoppel, Kathryn getting pregnant would likely never be considered "detrimental reliance" because it would set a bad public policy example.

 

She's too immature and selfish to see that the best way to get what she wants is not to act like a crazy person. I live here and have heard he offered her much more than $2,500 for an amicable agreement about child support and she went batshit crazy on him so he withdrew the offer. Unfortunately for her, he has the money and thus, the power to control whether he wants to give more than the maximum. The fact that these two don't have a settled child support order is crazy to me and suggests that Kathryn does not have an attorney. Any attorney worth their salt would get in front of judge ASAP.

[CatMomma]

I don't necessarily consider myself a prideful person, but there is just something about a woman begging and pleading with a man to marry her that really bothers me. I just don't see how they can do it.  Does she have any pride at all?  Apparently not. 

 

 

 

Ugh, I hate to bring up the south, but I live in TX, so I'm gonna go there.

 

They live in a very traditional conservative state.  This sort of attitude is very prevalent. A woman is seen as inferior without a husband, particularly if they have a child.  Just watching how Kathryn's parents reacted to the fact that their 22 year old daughter was with a 50 year old man says it all. As awful as it sounds, it looks like Kathryn was raised to believe that she is great breeding stock, and TRav only contributed to that idea.  To me, Kathryn seems very insulated and has been made to feel that her youth, beauty, and fertility are her most important assets. Sad, really.

 

I don't like Kathryn but I can sympathize.  

[jkitty]

I think even with IVF, a court is not going to rule in favor of Kathryn. Contracting for a child (barring gestational surrogacy) is not allowed here. South Carolina does not look favorably on anything that could look like "buying a baby," which a skilled attorney could probably successfully argue that Thomas was essentially paying Kathryn for the baby. Moreover, there's something called the statute of frauds, which would almost certainly apply if you couldn't get it kicked on public policy--their agreement would have to be in writing. As for promissory estoppel, Kathryn getting pregnant would likely never be considered "detrimental reliance" because it would set a bad public policy example.

 

She's too immature and selfish to see that the best way to get what she wants is not to act like a crazy person. I live here and have heard he offered her much more than $2,500 for an amicable agreement about child support and she went batshit crazy on him so he withdrew the offer. Unfortunately for her, he has the money and thus, the power to control whether he wants to give more than the maximum. The fact that these two don't have a settled child support order is crazy to me and suggests that Kathryn does not have an attorney. Any attorney worth their salt would get in front of judge ASAP.

 

I agree with your other points about public policy considerations (back to the "institutionalized sexism..."), although I have think there is an argument to be made that you are not "buying" a baby if it is your own genetic material (family law is not my specialty, so I am not sure if that is a settled point).  Also, I am familiar with the statute of frauds but am not sure why you think it would apply.  The agreement could easily be performed within 1 year via a lump sum payment or some other structure.  

 

I agree that Kathryn acts like a crazy person, but Thomas is no better. I am not sure acting amicably would help her fare any better.  Thomas seems just as unhinged as she is and I am not sure even the most rational, well-behaved person in the world could deal with his crazy.  They are a hot mess and, if she has any, her lawyers do appear to suck.

[wovenloaf]

A court is never going to recognize their agreement because it would be against public policy. You cannot contract for sex in exchange for anything. And that is essentially what they did.

Yes, this. That would never happen. 

 

There's also the issue that the person's reliance has to be reasonable. Most people wouldn't say (and a court definitely wouldn't for many reasons, including the one above) that relying on the promises of a man you just met that is trying to get in your pants is reasonable. 

[IKnowRight]

Moderator said Thomas was polling 11 percent just before the arrest.

 

That would have been a respectable showing and he could have swung the election.  If Graham lost, it would have been national news.

 

Wonder if he blames the stylist and by extension Kathryn for his final vote tally.

Thomas was never going to knock out Lindsey Graham. The show certainly hurt him, and Kathryn didn't do him any favors but no one seriously believed that he would have an impact of that magnitude. The votes he got were family and some fans.

Another poster made a good point that if he wanted to truly have an impact he would have run for the House or a state level position. I agree he could be forgiven if he didn't continue to make horrible decisions like saying on national TV that he wanted to get 21 year old Kathryn pregnant. Everyone thinks he's out of his mind and didn't learn from his mistakes.

It's very unfair of Thomas if he faults Kathryn for his poor performance in that election. Graham is a seasoned, moderate and non controversial candidate and had done nothing that would have lead to an upset.

[cooksdelight]

Thomas can't run for state office due to his previous conviction. Federal office is it.

TVSnark, is that old law still on the books in SC that if a man and woman live together continuously for more than 48 hours they are considered common law husband and wife?

[Roxy]

I agree with Andy that at one point, Thomas looked at Kathryn as if he wanted to ravish her right there on the set. He's obviously addicted to her in some way. Then, the next minute, he's threatening her to some extent in a very scary way. These two are whacked. Maybe they're both addicted to the drama.

 

I have no doubt they'll get married or something else as reckless. They're both crazy.

[Babyfoot]

First the Beverage Cart Girl, now the Lesbian Wrestler. Lo the women Thomas hath known.

[RedHawk]

When Kathryn loses her shit Thomas gets this sort of gleeful smile on his face, as if he thinks she's proving she's crazy. Know what is even crazier, Thomas? That you keep getting pulled back into her orbit!

[Gam2]

I remember when my children were in their early twenties and still in college. And I also remember them after college, in their graduate programs. Sometimes their dad and I would look at each other in total befuddlement when they tried to explain the reasoning behind some of the decisions they made. These bright, educated, intelligent and well raised kids were sometimes just nuts. Of course, the last part of the brain to develop is the pre-frontal cortex which explains a lot about Kathryn or Katherine or however you spell her name. It does not, in any way, explain Thomas.  Bless their hearts.

[TVSnark]

Thomas can't run for state office due to his previous conviction. Federal office is it.

TVSnark, is that old law still on the books in SC that if a man and woman live together continuously for more than 48 hours they are considered common law husband and wife?

Ha, no. Thomas is probably grateful for that. You have to meet certain elements to be common law married, mainly that you hold yourself out to be married and you intend to be married. 

[nexxie]

I agree with Andy that at one point, Thomas looked at Kathryn as if he wanted to ravish her right there on the set. He's obviously addicted to her in some way. Then, the next minute, he's threatening her to some extent in a very scary way. These two are whacked. Maybe they're both addicted to the drama.

 

I have no doubt they'll get married or something else as reckless. They're both crazy.

Watching Thomas at the reunion made me think about those blue marks on Kathryn's jaw in the scene that showed her waking up on Jekyll Island - sure did look like bruises to me.

When Kathryn loses her shit Thomas gets this sort of gleeful smile on his face, as if he thinks she's proving she's crazy. Know what is even crazier, Thomas? That you keep getting pulled back into her orbit!

Which one is doing the pulling? Narcissists get that gleeful smirk when feeding off the emotional outbursts they've inspired - maybe Thomas is creepier than I first thought.

[cooksdelight]

Ha, no. Thomas is probably grateful for that. You have to meet certain elements to be common law married, mainly that you hold yourself out to be married and you intend to be married.

Thanks for that. A guy I used to know in Rock Hill got nabbed with that old law and had to pay dearly for it.

[missy jo]

Said it before; a boy baby would have gotten her the crown and sceptre. She had a girl.

 

 

Agree. He wanted a *male* heir of his own.

 

Re: $2500/month - As I know from watching Judge Judy (heh), child support is for costs incurred to feed, house, clothe, educate and otherwise support the child, i.e. it can go toward the electricity bill if she wants.

 

Thomas can and should cough up a lot more. If Kathryn could tone down her Kathryn-ness for a few minutes, I bet he'd reconsider and pay more. Then again, wealthy people are always the cheapest.

 

Moderator said Thomas was polling 11 percent just before the arrest. That would have been a respectable showing. Wonder if he blames the stylist and by extension Kathryn for his final vote tally.

 

 

He said he blamed that incident, which I thought was absurd. But that was before I learned that he'd gone from polling at 11% (in range of his goal of 18-19) all the way down to 3% after the assault charge. It did indeed sink him.

Edited June 4, 2015 by missy jo

[Lonesome Rhodes]

1) K's attorneys knew exactly what they were doing by refusing to make a counter offer.  They were very likely to get killed in the ensuing judgement.  Thomas would readily agree to specific support, such as a nanny and schooling, paid directly and controlled by him.  He night would even agree to a specific domicile, owned by him.  Then, what expenses, precisely, would K have in relation to raising K?  Her attorneys knew that the best thing they have going is the degree to which this is all an irritant and an embarrassment to T.   Drag it out and get him angry enough to agree to terms better than he easily could have won with the backing of old school SC law and practice.

 

2)  T clearly stated that he entered the race as an entree to future elections.  If he could have garnered a reasonable percentage (he cited 19%) he would rightly claim relevance towards the future.  The past would begin to fade in importance.

[KnoxForPres]

I'm still laughing at Shep's "Craig's List". Not laughing with Shep but AT him. That list would only have been funny if it were similar to the one Bosawks drew up:

I'd add:

6. Has real front teeth.

Boaawks #4 is likely the funniest thing I will read all June. Cannot stop laughing.

As a parent of a rescued mutt (Knox) who eats Blue Buffalo and goes to to dog daycare five times a week on a shoestring budget , I'm thinking I missed a huge step in life by not getting preggo. I'd likely fall to the ground and praise the fertility gods if someone gave me 2500/month. And that causes outrage?

I'm not comparing a dog to a child but if my income increased by 2500/mo I'd be elated. Even if I factor in private school education, isn't that doable? If T-Chin (love that!) is loaded, fine, why should he shell out loads of cash? Can't a person take care of a youngster with damn 2500/month or am I just stupid and it takes like 10 grand a month to raise a child? That's not a hypothetical question.

[hottesthw]

Thomas is financially responsible for Kensie. Not Kathryn.

She is her mother. Of course she is financially responsible for her.

[hottesthw]

I heard differently (but maybe not accurately). What I heard was that Kathryn claimed that Thomas promised her that he'd give her a house to live in, a car to drive etc if she had his child. Now that she's had his child and things are rocky between them, he's offering $2,500/month instead. If Kathryn wanted a payday for a baby, she'd have been better off with a basketball player with those big fat guaranteed contracts.

Well Kathryn needs to get over it. That's called life. People make promises and break them all the time, especially in relationships. She wasn't married yet had a baby so now she should take the court ordered child support and just shut up. It was his money before she came along and it's still his money now. He just has to make sure that baby gets her fair share. Her mother deserves nothing more. They had a brief volatile relationship based partially on their desires to be on a tv show. She is perfectly able to go out and get a damn job. She's hardly a 65yr old woman who stayed home raising kids for 40 years who is now finding herself divorced and starting over.

And if Kathryn had a baby solely based on the material things TRav promised her, I question her sanity more than his.

TRav is disgusting but women like Kathryn make me embarrassed to be one.

I think Kathryn should sue Thomas for fraudulent inducement or breach of an oral contract. From the conversations in season 1, it sounds like he promised her certain things (car, house, financial assistance) that would allow her to not work and care for their child if she got pregnant. In reliance on those promises, Kathryn allowed Thomas to get her pregnant. He made it clear in season 1 he wanted a child and it appears he promised Kathryn certain things to get what he wanted. She relied on those promises to her detriment. She has been damaged by his failure to perform. Whether it seems uncouth or not, Thomas made an agreement and should not be allowed to back out after Kathyrn performed on her end. If anything, if feel like the manipulator in this situation was Thomas, not Kathryn.

Wow, based on Kathryn's line of thinking I've got a lot of ex-boyfriends to call up and cash in on.

She must either have a really bad attorney or no case at all if that's the accusation their going with.

[Lola16]

Well Kathryn needs to get over it. That's called life. People make promises and break them all the time, especially in relationships. She wasn't married yet had a baby so now she should take the court ordered child support and just shut up. It was his money before she came along and it's still his money now. He just has to make sure that baby gets her fair share. Her mother deserves nothing more. They had a brief volatile relationship based partially on their desires to be on a tv show. She is perfectly able to go out and get a damn job. She's hardly a 65yr old woman who stayed home raising kids for 40 years who is now finding herself divorced and starting over.

 

There has been no court order yet.  And personally, I'm not OK with hand waving lies or bad behavior because "people" do that. No, good upstanding people don't. 

 

I don't think Kathryn is entitled to a pay day because she had a baby by a rich man.  I do think Thomas made promises and he should fulfill them within reason.

[hottesthw]

There has been no court order yet. And personally, I'm not OK with hand waving lies or bad behavior because "people" do that. No, good upstanding people don't.

I don't think Kathryn is entitled to a pay day because she had a baby by a rich man. I do think Thomas made promises and he should fulfill them within reason.

I agree with you completely. He made a baby with her. Court ordered child support should be paid and that's it. He owes her nothing else. If she wants to drive fancy cars she can go get a job and buy herself one.

I actually commend him for wanting 50/50 custody as in this day and age most men are happy to let the woman do all the dirty work and just swoop in on the weekends twice a month to play dad.

[jennylauren123]

You do not have to be married to bear legal responsibility for your child.

 

I had a baby when I was 20. The father was 8 years older than I and was ready for marriage. I was not. I wasn't really ready for parenthood, had used birth control faithfully to avoid it, but there you go. 

 

Anyway, when our son was born, I had his father sign paternity papers so that he would be legally obligated to provide for our son. Not for me, for our son. He wanted our son to have his last name, and I said that I would agree as long as he signed the papers.

 

Almost 32 years later, all is well. My son, his father, and I are thriving. The father was wonderful throughout my son's childhood and continues to be a wonderful father and all around great human being.

Edited June 4, 2015 by jennylauren123

[glowlights]

Well, that reunion was even more of a lunchbag letdown than the season finale. What happened to my lovely, hilarious little show with the cartinis and do-over christenings? It's getting way too Andy Cohen-ized for me, and I mainly blame Kathryn's presence for that. She missed her calling on Jerry Springer.

 

My heart sank a little when Shep whipped out that piece of paper, but then he referred to the list as "transgressions" and the camera picked up that it was just some loopy, hand-scrawled mess on a crumpled scrap and, well, that's my Shep. In an interview his mother said that he was always hard on his little brother, and I think Craig is filling that role on the show. Hopefully it will evolve in Season 3, but if Season 3 focuses on Kathryn's trashy antics I probably won't watch.

 

Landon looked lovely and Whitney didn't make any juvenile hand gestures to represent intercourse. That's the nicest thing I can think to say.

 

It definitely should have been held at Patsy's house. I loved that Whitney said the club house was too undignified for her.

[cooksdelight]

Thomas gave Kensie his last name, according to what we saw at the christening. I expect he probably did the same with signing paternity papers. And I remember he got a paternity test. Kathryn needs to be happy her baby will want for nothing and get on with her life.

[Bossa Nova]

I have to get something off my chest about that Whitney that bothered me several times throughout the season. I decided to post it here instead of his thread as more posters might see it and comment. 

 

This guy is a real creep. C - R - E - E - P.

 

Recall the Founders Ball when he was sitting at the table with Shep while they are both sitting here in tuxedos at a formal dinner event. Whitney brought up Shep's date for the night. That new brunette girl. Whitney crudely asks Shep if he had boffed her yet.  That's my word, not his. Then Whitney made the two handed intercourse gesture: the closed circle with one hand, then the finger going thru it with his other hand. Shep said no, they had just met. Then Whitney said something that was bleeped, but it looked like... well you have to get pussy. It was definitely crude what ever it was. Sure Shep wasn't much better, but my rant here is about Whitney.

 

Then cut to Whitney's talking head where he says he was glad to see Shep with a proper pretty girl for once (I paraphrase).~cough~

 

Then in one of the last episodes, (or was it the reunion... not sure), Whitney made that crude intercourse sound with his mouth. You know the one, where it sounds like rubbing and wetness. So frigging disgusting.

 

Then there was another crude reference to describe intercourse earlier in the season (can't recall the one).

 

Point being, this  is a 46 year old adult displaying what can be described at the very least, as adolescent boy attitudes towards adult sexual relations. Then sprinkled throughout are his la- dee- dah references to jet setting, being monied and privileged, being educated and speaking French, and being proper. ~cough~

 

And there he is dating a 22 year old girl and announces at the reunion that he is moving in with her in LA (yeah riiiiight). Kathryn pointed ot her age at the reunion and his hypocrisy (good one Kathryn - she shoots and scores).

 

**Then when Andy Cohen asks him is he has ever dealt with a gold digger himself, Whitless uses the term, "svetlanas". Wow, a real condescending diminishing elitist term to further degrade women. Also denoting young women that just agree to marry or get involved with American men just for their money. What an asshole. 

 

Along with the constant sneering, condescension and belittling of Kathryn, and nd all the mysoginist references to gold diggers (hello mom Patricia?!) and degradation of women in general....there is something quite weird and off putting about this guy. A 46 year old adult.

 

My conclusion: this guy is a creep, a mysoginist, in denial of his sexuality, clearly has some sort of arrested development or maybe something even more creepy. Belongs to a band named "renob" which is boner backwards. A 46 year old male adult with a boy's haircut. He is a creep alright.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Bossa Nova

[SFoster21]

Sing it, Bossa and set it to a Brazilian score!

[Bossa Nova]

Thanks, SFoster21. I may be no Girl From Ipanema but I think I am on to something here. ;)

 

**I since have added one more thought on my post....I forgot about when he used the term "svetlanas " at the reunion.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Bossa Nova

[Kerrey92]

I have see no mention of Shep's collar!  It was all tucked into his jacket and I just really wanted to get into that clubhouse and straighten it!!

[jaybird2]

Did Thomas utter these promises on film, was it part of last season? If not, it's a he said/she said situation. Who can afford the more powerful attorney to get that thrown out of court?

 

I agree he should provide for his daughter, and I think he will. In a way that Kathryn can't spend the money on clothes or purses. 

 

thank you cooksdelight for your voice of reason.  there are a lot of assumptions  being batted around here.   

 

i, also, do not remember the things  people are attributing to thomas.  granted he is a cad but kathryn new what she was getting into.  she new she was not on birth control when she had sex with all three men.  wonder what she would have done if whitney happened to be the father.

i'm new to posting so i really don't know to quote anyone.

 

can anyone help

[Bronzedog]

OMG! It would have been great if Whitney had been the father! Can you imagine Patricia's reaction?

[RedHawk]

Bossa, you are right on! Plus, he's 47 AND don't forget his classy comment at the reunion that he doesn't care "who Thomas sticks it in". That about sent Kathryn into apoplexy. I think even Andy looked agast and Thomas had the decency to look somewhat embarrassed.

Yes, Whitney is spelled CREEP.

Also, he's not fooling anyone. That girl is moving in with him in L.A. to further her career and nothing more. She'll be off with the first guy who offers her a role or first hot actor under 35 who will have her.

[jaybird2]

cooksdelight,

 

i didn't mean  to post in your post, sorry.  i was trying to quote you

[missy jo]

Did anyone else think that Kathryn seemed to be Andy's favorite at the reunion?

[cooksdelight]

Did anyone else think that Kathryn seemed to be Andy's favorite at the reunion?

Of course. He knew she'd bring the crazy. And she did, standing up, waving her arms/hands around, calling out Thomas and Whitney. Andy knows who his nutjobs are. :)

[Bossa Nova]

Bossa, you are right on! Plus, he's 47 AND don't forget his classy comment at the reunion that he doesn't care "who Thomas sticks it in". That about sent Kathryn into apoplexy. I think even Andy looked agast and Thomas had the decency to look somewhat embarrassed.

Yes, Whitney is spelled CREEP.

 

Also, he's not fooling anyone. That girl is moving in with him in L.A. to further her career and nothing more. She'll be off with the first guy who offers her a role or first hot actor under 35 who will have her.

 

Like minds and all, Red Hawk ! And thank you for recalling that other horrible thing he said at the reunion. That's the one I couldn't think of. Another crude intercourse reference, weird, huh?

 

Wonder if his oddly repetitive adolescent boy locker room sex descriptions are almost what he thinks grown up real men talk like? Hmmm....

 

All uttered with that Damien haircut. Creepy.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Bossa Nova

[Babyfoot]

I always come away from these reunions loathing Andy Cohen. The man isn't happy unless he's stirring shit or his favorite nut buckets are showing their asses. It looks like he had them seated in descending order of crazy. On one side: Kathryn (0ff the chart bat shit crazy), Craig (moderately crazy), Cameran (minimal reality show crazy). On the other: Thomas (crazy), Whitney (more creepy than crazy but still crazy - sorry Whit, I love you, but it's true), Shep (minimal reality show crazy), Landon (crazy boring).

[Neurochick]

I don't like Kathryn at all, but I feel for her because she learned this sad truth; that just because you push out a baby, doesn't automatically mean the "baby daddy" will respect, love or even marry you.  

[RedHawk]

Kathryn keeps demanding respect from Thomas by saying, "I'm the mother of your child!" But she won't accept that she loses him more every time.

[sasha206]

I agree with Andy that at one point, Thomas looked at Kathryn as if he wanted to ravish her right there on the set. He's obviously addicted to her in some way. Then, the next minute, he's threatening her to some extent in a very scary way. These two are whacked. Maybe they're both addicted to the drama.

 

I have no doubt they'll get married or something else as reckless. They're both crazy.

 

I think they both are addicted to the drama of a love hate relationship.  I feel sad tht their daughter will someday watch this fuckery.

 

On Shep, I found him likeable up until the moment when Craig et. al were biking with him and he made a number of snide comments about him not having a job.  And really, the Bachelor auction?  

 

I think he really wants Craig to fail because for some reason he's a tad jealous of him.  Craig seems like the type of person who was driven, had high expectations, and then after working so hard, took a break.  Then got depressed and overwhelmed.  Partying, drinking with the trust fund babies.  Not realizing they have the means to stay out all night.  Something tells me Craig will be just fine and will eventually be more successful (more self-made) than all of them.  He was the one I liked the least at first and liked more and more as time went on.

 

Whitney is an asshole but for some reason I kind of like him.  Dude can lay down some good lines.  

[sasha206]

Goodness, I wouldn't want to live in a world where 45-50 is considered "old."

 

 

But Thomas is over Kathryn, he doesn't give a shit.  I'm not from this school where just because a woman had a baby with someone, he's supposed to defend her from insults.  Kathryn isn't his daughter, she's a grown woman.

 

I'm almost 48.  I don't think it's "old" but i find chasing after 22 year-olds, and then being surprised that they are immature, is skeevy.