S18.E09: Nominations 3, Road Kill 3

[RCharter]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I think it's possible to think Frank is a total asshole, blind to any and all social rules -- after all this is the guy who thinks it's funny to fart around people who are eating-- and still think Day could have handled it better.  I don't watch the feeds but on the show I saw Day tell Frank to move his big ass and his face lit up like, "Oh boy we get to play the teasing insults game!"  Is "slut," a huge escalation from "big ass?"  Yes, and that just shows Frank's stupidity, but he isn't going to learn any better when Day comes back at him with laughter.  Frank's a jerk and I would hate to have him in my work place, but if I did, I would have shut it down the very first time it reared it's ugly head.  Not in a way to make an enemy out of him but just to let him know I didn't play that.  A serious tone and a, "I don't like that sort of talk, Frank.  My daughter's watching," would have probably stopped him and I don't think it would have hurt her game. 

Day is under no obligation to explain to a grown ass 32 year old man that he shouldn't be slapping her ass.  

It doesn't make what she had to put up with any better, it doesn't make her complicit that she felt she had to laugh it off for the sake of her game.

I have no idea why its Day's responsibility to teach Frank what other grown ass adults already know.  That sounds an awful lot like more "mansplainin" to me.

"Well, what Frank did is wrong, but its really on Day to make sure he understands that his actions are wrong, so really, she is wrong too!"

LOL, you would have shut it down, and in this game, you would have suffered the consequences.  On the feeds,  Frank almost immediately started to discuss getting rid of Day after she dared to call him out.

But again, its the very idea that women are under some obligation to educate grown ass men that rubs me the wrong way.

[RCharter]

29 minutes ago, mayziemay said:

Laprin, you have no idea what I have endured but thank you for your insight.

 

I think Da would have earned a lot of house guest's respect if she calmly told Frank she didn't like his rude comments and that she has a daughter watching so STOP. I think it would have helped her game.

You think upsetting Frank would have been good for Day's game in a week where Frank basically has all the power?  I don't see how that makes sense at all.

Every HG is playing for themselves, not for Day, and if they see that a power figure in the house simply doesn't like her, it doesn't matter how much "respect" she has from them.

And furthermore, the issue isn't getting the HG respect, its the idea that Day is somehow complicit because she didn't explain to a grown ass man that slapping her on the ass is wrong and risk incurring his wrath.

[RCharter]

10 hours ago, NYCFree said:

I found this week to be a fascinating microcosm of workplace harassment.  The fact that these women can not actually tell the harasser they do not welcome the inappropriate touching and derogatory language without fear of retaliation was perfectly shown.  It was obvious that Frank was the "real" HOH.  Anything they did that might offend Frank, could have placed them on the block.  Frank would never have said "Day didn't like being popped on the butt, so she must go."  It would have been something like "Day isn't a team player, she is emotional and unstable and puts the house in turmoil."

Yeah, I'm amused at people who think Day would have somehow confronted Frank  and her game wouldn't have suffered for it.

Those are exactly the words/attitude he would have used.

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

We don't know that he would target her over telling him that.  That's a pretty big stretch, I think. 

My husband is career Air Force.  He taught classes in sexual harassment to his troops.  The first thing he taught the men was that they should not touch the other troops, make sexual comments of any kind to the women, or make sexual jokes.  So Frank would be wrong on all counts.  The first thing he taught the women was that if they felt sexually harassed in any way their first responsibility was to say, in words, that they don't like it.  Without that simple effort they have no case, no matter what the guy does.

I was working in the Pentagon at the time with military customers all day long, mostly Colonels or Generals who were used to getting away with anything.  Many a time I would be in my cubicle with one who would think he could lean forward while he was talking and put his hand on my leg or lean over my back to look at my computer and give my shoulder a squeeze.  I always, in a neutral tone of voice, without hesitation, said, "Don't touch me."  It would sound like this, "With a home equity loan we'll need a -- don't touch me -- tax assessment..."  No one ever got mad, face was saved all around, but my message was clear.  If Day want's to model something for her  daughter she could model that, she doesn't have to scream at him and put on a big show, just tell him. Because laughing at Frank's jokes while crying in the DR is just not fair.  Frank's a stupid jerk who should know better, but Day should know how to handle something like that without blowing up her game.

So, now the onus is on women to teach men what is wrong.  And if they don't, its the victim's fault?  That is so unfortunate.  If men are getting the same classes, then it is on THEM to not do the wrong thing.  Its not the victim's duty to try to teach a harasser what is and isn't wrong.  And no matter what a guy does if they don't sit him down and tell him they don't like it, there is no way to hold a man accountable?  That just sounds awful.

But, I guess its just a long history of finding any way to blame the victim.  The idea that you have to tell a grown man that its wrong to slap a woman's ass, and if you didn't sit him down and tell him that he is wrong...he isn't accountable.

With someone like Frank, any complaint is going to "blow up your game," as he, as any other player, is going to amplify any perceived distaste for him as someone who is targeting him and work to get rid of that person.

In fact, she finally got tired of it and said "stop hitting me on my ass, Frank" and THAT very clear, very obvious comment did not stop him.  In fact, after she said it, his comment was "I got her good."  So, her comment didn't stop him, and if that comment didn't stop him, then a neutral tone wouldn't have worked either.

But then again, I don't think its on a woman to have to explain these things to a man.  

[ghoulina]

56 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

. He's the one that thinks he's joking around by slapping girls on their asses and calling them sluts, whores, and other demeaning terms. He thinks that commenting on their weight is funny and he's just being a 'kid at heart'.

See, this is what bothers me. How is his behavior kid-like either? I have two sons (8 & 6) and they have been taught from day one not to touch other people without their permission - male and female. They've also been taught not to call people names or comment on their appearances. So I don't see Frank's behavior as childlike, but as just an asshole. 

 

45 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

I have a really tough time calling anyone out on this show for their behavior, because I don't know if any of the house guests are being prompted by TPTB to act in a certain way.  That perhaps the house guests might be asked to act in a way to benefit the show, but that action isn't in the best interests of the house guests when they get back into the real world.  In other words, are the house guests that we see on TV playing a role, or are they being real?  I suppose we will never know.  That is why I can't get too worked up over what occurs on this show. 

If you're willing to demean and harass women to enhance a reality show, then you're just as disgusting as if you'd do it of your own volition. Maybe more so. 

Drama can be fun, when it feels balanced. When it feels like one person is picking on someone else, harassing, degrading them - that's no fun, IMO. 

[ghoulina]

Quote

I was surprised they didn't show it, but  Paulie did just that.

 

Good. I am glad to hear she has guys taking up for her, not just the girls. It doesn't really surprise me. As I mentioned earlier, Paulie seemed genuinely worried about her. 

 

Sorry about the above quote boxes, I'm having technical issues.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting

[RCharter]

6 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

See, this is what bothers me. How is his behavior kid-like either? I have two sons (8 & 6) and they have been taught from day one not to touch other people without their permission - male and female. They've also been taught not to call people names or comment on their appearances. So I don't see Frank's behavior as childlike, but as just an asshole. 

I would venture to say that I have two brothers -- both of whom have served in the military -- and that both know that it is wrong to slap a woman's ass.  And do not need to have these things explained to them by a woman in order to take responsibility for knowing that its the wrong thing to do.

I think its great that you taught your sons to have respect, but I think its sad that its now some gold medal moment in parenting to teach your male child to respect others.

And that if men don't know to respect women, its somehow the woman's fault for not teaching them what their parents should have taught them.

[Lady Calypso]

6 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

See, this is what bothers me. How is his behavior kid-like either? I have two sons (8 & 6) and they have been taught from day one not to touch other people without their permission - male and female. They've also been taught not to call people names or comment on their appearances. So I don't see Frank's behavior as childlike, but as just an asshole. 

 

And this is why I'm glad they showed Frank's apology scene. It's important to show that there are people who genuinely think that their actions are alright. Because they were raised a certain way, they think that their words and actions are fine just because he's joking around with the people that he cares about. And that, to me, is scarier than someone who knows he's an asshole. Frank may not know better, and he might not be able to change his ways. But him thinking that he can slap people's asses, call them out on their weight, and demean them with words like "woman"? He may never fully understand, even if someone does sit him down and explain it. And he's thirty two years old, so it's even scarier than a grown ass man doesn't know these things. I think he needs to be informed about his actions, but it's really sad and pathetic that he doesn't already know how to treat women.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Frank Discussions On Big Brother

While running the house through Bridgette, Frank ruffles feathers. Including -- secretly -- Bridgette's.

[backformore]

I think the slap on the ass was just another step in the way Frank demeans and intimidates women in the house.  The scene where he peeked over the shower door at her was a step in that direction.  The way he comments on their bodies, the horseplay in the pool  It's all a way of conveying "I'm bigger and stronger, and I'm MALE, so I can do what I want."   the result is that women end up feeling vulnerable and defenseless.  Yes, if someone slaps your ass, you can speak up.  BUT - if they first call you names, make sexual comments, and treat you like you are not worthy of respect because of your gender, and THEN slap you, you might not feel empowered to speak up. Especially when  This is not a workplace where you can report an offense, or avoid the person, or ask for a transfer.   The women see the power that Frank has over the other guys in the house, (and Bridgette), so the reality is that they are vulnerable.  Speaking up might very well result in comments about "feminists"  or "touchy broads", or analyzing every time someone gives someone a hug, "I thought you didn't want to be touched!" 

So the women go along, laugh at his antics, and pretend to not be bothered, until he makes them cry or yell.   That's what happens in that situation, when women feel powerless.  They laugh and play along, hiding their feelings, and then get mad at themselves for putting up with it. 

[Wings]

2 hours ago, mayziemay said:

 

 

I think Da would have earned a lot of house guest's respect if she calmly told Frank she didn't like his rude comments and that she has a daughter watching so STOP. I think it would have helped her game.

I respectfully disagree.  I watch the feeds so I tread a fine line here.  Generally speaking any HG (any season) has to have a razor sharp focus on their social game.  It is about winning 500k, not using the show as a political platform to voice your moral position on anything.  Say what you want in the DR or privately to the camera and SM will take care of it for you.  It has a much louder voice.  

No one called Aaryn on her bigotry until she came face to face with Julie and the media!  She caused a storm that spoke more clearly than any HG could.  

[Nashville]

3 hours ago, PreviouslyTV said:

While running the house through Bridgette, Frank ruffles feathers. Including -- secretly -- Bridgette's.

View the full article

My favoritest part:  Frank goes with one of his original choices: Bronte. As much control as he has over Bridgette, he clearly doesn't know that she's in an alliance with Bronte and Natalie. In the DR, Bridgette vows revenge against whomever secretly nominated her fellow Spy Girl. "You have no idea who the heck you're messing with," she grits, with the steely determination of a moth trying to get in through a closed window.

3 hours ago, Ceeg said:

The problem is this isn't a workplace, with a boss who can tell Frank to stop or he's fired. Frank is running this game. If Day came to him and told him she was offended, he'd target her.

  Reveal hidden contents

The main reason Frank is targeting Tiffany is because she won't put up with that shit. He yelled at her over a bottle of wine, she got pissed/upset, and next thing you know, she's Frank's #1 target. Not to mention, after Frank "apologized" to Day, he told one of the other guys that if Day didn't accept his apology, she could go out the door next. 

The hell it's not.  All these HGs are under contract to CBS, correct?  It may be unconventional, but the BB House is a workplace, the HGs are all CBS employees, and Allison Grodner is their boss.

Which means it's AG's responsibility to set Frank straight - not Da'Vonne's.

[Wandering Snark]

5 hours ago, ghoulina said:

And don't try to assuage people with hot Cheetohs. 

Just. Stop. Giggling! That's what runs through my head on a loop every time she is on camera. And the flashing the peace sign. And the, well, everything.

5 hours ago, ghoulina said:

But the problem lies within the fact that he thought that was okay in the first place.

Xactly. That's the core issue, he's genuinely shocked that everyone doesn't fall over themselves laughing at his comments and even more shocked that "patting ass" isn't universally accepted as endearing.

[Boilergal]

I was married to a guy like Frank for 9 years.  He would pin me down and "tickle" me and when it upset me I was the horrible person that couldn't be "played" with - then it would be followed by hours or days of silent treatment.  He loved to go to the pool so he could "playfully" dunk me - there was nothing playful about it - he was aggressive - and when I would call him on it I got the same "Fine I just won't play with you anymore" followed by more silent treatment. Can't even tell you how many times I had hand prints on my butt, and don't even get me started on the crappy things he would say to me to make sure my self-esteem was kept at a pretty low level.

I'm not a little girly girl - I played rugby and can take being roughed up - but his behaviour was cruel and manipulative and that is exactly how I see Frank - I was having flashbacks last night. 

And like Frank he saw NOTHING wrong with what he was doing - it was me that was the issue - I couldn't take his joking around.  He felt like he was entitled to do what he wanted and his behavior was perfectly acceptable.  Didn't matter when we talked about it - I was wrong - always wrong.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Boilergal

[sparrowtime]

Call me cynical but I have a hunch this Frank - Da'Vonne thing is producer driven to add tension, drama and controversy to what was shaping up to be a dull season. I know for sure I have watched way too much "reality TV" to think what we see is how it truly is. 

[sunsheyen]

5 minutes ago, sparrowtime said:

Call me cynical but I have a hunch this Frank - Da'Vonne thing is producer driven to add tension, drama and controversy to what was shaping up to be a dull season. I know for sure I have watched way too much "reality TV" to think what we see is how it truly is. 

While you may have hunch, it is rooted in his actual behavior.

[kassa]

6 hours ago, ghoulina said:

WHAT is with Nicole's obsession over Corey? He's not THAT good looking. I mean.....

 

3 hours ago, ghoulina said:

If you're willing to demean and harass women to enhance a reality show, then you're just as disgusting as if you'd do it of your own volition. Maybe more so. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by kassa

[NYCFree]

13 minutes ago, sparrowtime said:

Call me cynical but I have a hunch this Frank - Da'Vonne thing is producer driven to add tension, drama and controversy to what was shaping up to be a dull season. I know for sure I have watched way too much "reality TV" to think what we see is how it truly is. 

Even if true, that Frank is willing to go along with demeaning to women suggestions by producers, that means that Frank is ok with how he is portrayed.  If I were in the BB house, and a producer suggested to me that my persona as a 49 year old white woman should be that I was distrustful about the people of color in the house, there is no way I would agree to do that.  As manipulative as reality shows are, they are still supposed to be showing real people, not characters.  He'd also have to have world class acting chops for maintaining this fake persona for 24 hours a day.

[kassa]

Still can't quite nail the multiple quotes.  but in response to the above, I think a smart female player probably should keep the powers that be (the producers who draft the summer storylines) open to the possibility of a showmance, even if they have no particular desire for one.  He's a hunky possible challenge beast - just the type producers love.  If there will be shenanigans to keep him in the house, there could be shenanigans to keep her in likewise if they hope something will come of it.

And there's an old expression "if you claim you just play an asshole on the internet... you're an asshole." Same for Big Brother (or any reality show).

[JudyObscure]

3 hours ago, RCharter said:

Day is under no obligation to explain to a grown ass 32 year old man that he shouldn't be slapping her ass.  

It doesn't make what she had to put up with any better, it doesn't make her complicit that she felt she had to laugh it off for the sake of her game.

I have no idea why its Day's responsibility to teach Frank what other grown ass adults already know.  That sounds an awful lot like more "mansplainin" to me.

"Well, what Frank did is wrong, but its really on Day to make sure he understands that his actions are wrong, so really, she is wrong too!"

LOL, you would have shut it down, and in this game, you would have suffered the consequences.  On the feeds,  Frank almost immediately started to discuss getting rid of Day after she dared to call him out.

But again, its the very idea that women are under some obligation to educate grown ass men that rubs me the wrong way.

First of all, when responding to one of my posts, please don't put things in  quotes that I didn't say, it's very misleading. No one has called Day complicit or said that she is under an obligation to teach Frank how to treat women.

Saying clearly that you don't like what a guy is doing is not about educating him or teaching him anything, it's about drawing a clear line in the sand.   It's what separates what Frank is doing to Day from what  Paulie is doing with Zakiyeh.  It puts paid to any plans Frank might have of saying, "Oh, I thought she liked it," or "Oh, I thought we were just playing around."  It was for Day's own protection to say those words. 

Once Da'Vonne told Frank that she didn't like what he was doing he was inarguably in the wrong.  Every time he touched her after that he was clearly, legally, in the wrong.   I think the show should have removed him then, just like they removed one man for "kidding around" with a knife and another for throwing chairs.

[sparrowtime]

Oh, I don't view Frank as a paragon of virtue and high character. He is likely more than willing to act the sub par doofus with that much cash on the line. But, to me, this storyline is too contrived and I still think it is scripted.

[Nashville]

1 minute ago, sparrowtime said:

Oh, I don't view Frank as a paragon of virtue and high character. He is likely more than willing to act the sub par doofus with that much cash on the line. But, to me, this storyline is too contrived and I still think it is scripted.

If this were scripted, then someone in Production has one ROYALLY fucked-up notion of what constitutes entertainment.  

Please allow me to make my stance on this perfectly clear.  I have two daughters in their mid/late 20s.  If Frank Eudy were to speak or lay hands on either of them in the same manner he has the female HGs in this show, I would be introducing him to an exciting new 2x4-oriented dental plan.

[Lady Calypso]

12 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

Given Frank's line of work, it seems incredibly stupid to me that he would act in any controversial way at all.  This isn't the old days, when most viewers seperated what went on in the house with how house guests may act in the real world.  We don't know any of these house guests, we only get to see a snapshot of how they act over a short period of time.  And, if you are like me, who doesn't read spoilers, and who also doesn't watch the live feeds or After Dark, the only thing I end up seeing is what I presume is a heavily edited, perhaps skewed, synopsis of what goes on in that house.  Plus, we don't have a clue what is going on behind the scenes that never gets filmed..

I think what becomes different with this show is that these people are filmed 24/7 over a course of three months. There's a lot of times where I bet they forget that there are cameras everywhere, even with cameras, mics, and the lights being there. Of course the episodes are all heavily edited, which is why the live feeds are a good indication of what the closer version of a houseguest is. There's no manipulation there, except on what camera feeds that we are allowed to see. However, Frank, and the others, have been in that house for almost a month now. The fact that there are multiple incidents of Frank using language or actions to demean women, even if he doesn't realize it himself, is incredibly unsettling. He seems to do it so casually, in such a 'joking' manner but it's still wrong, and it still shows a little bit more of the real Frank. I doubt anyone would want to act this way in front of thousands of viewers. He is incredibly stupid if this is an act, but I don't think it is. 

It is definitely harder when you're such a casual viewer. That was me for seasons 12-14, where I didn't watch the live feeds, didn't read much up on spoilers, and only watched After Dark once in a while, when I could get the TV to watch it. The BB editors always pick and choose the 'best' or 'worst' storylines to  show. Usually, yeah, they edit out the bad behaviour. This time, they surprisingly showed a lot more than I thought they would. But you are right, in the sense that there might be aspects that we don't see from the cameras because there might be two other more interesting things happening so they can't show a third camera feed. 

[Nashville]

3 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

I think what becomes different with this show is that these people are filmed 24/7 over a course of three months. There's a lot of times where I bet they forget that there are cameras everywhere, even with cameras, mics, and the lights being there.

This thought had crossed my mind as well.  Over the course of three months, I expect even continuous scrutiny could occasionally slip into the background buzz every now and then.  If Frankenweenie is slipping this bad after not quite a month, however, his future prospects ain't too freakin' great.  AG might want to consider cutting her losses early.

 

Quote

The BB editors always pick and choose the 'best' or 'worst' storylines to  show. Usually, yeah, they edit out the bad behaviour. This time, they surprisingly showed a lot more than I thought they would.

Agreed - still heavily filtered, but I was surprised they broached the subject at all.

[RCharter]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

First of all, when responding to one of my posts, please don't put things in  quotes that I didn't say, it's very misleading. No one has called Day complicit or said that she is under an obligation to teach Frank how to treat women.

Saying clearly that you don't like what a guy is doing is not about educating him or teaching him anything, it's about drawing a clear line in the sand.   It's what separates what Frank is doing to Day from what  Paulie is doing with Zakiyeh.  It puts paid to any plans Frank might have of saying, "Oh, I thought she liked it," or "Oh, I thought we were just playing around."  It was for Day's own protection to say those words. 

Once Da'Vonne told Frank that she didn't like what he was doing he was inarguably in the wrong.  Every time he touched her after that he was clearly, legally, in the wrong.   I think the show should have removed him then, just like they removed one man for "kidding around" with a knife and another for throwing chairs.

I directly quoted your post.  I do think that you are in essence saying both that Day is complicit in not telling Frank to stop, and that she is under an obligation, and that without doing so, she doesn't have a case.  Which would imply that Frank doesn't really have any responsibility for his actions, or wouldn't have to face any consequences for his actions unless he has been told and the clear line has been drawn.

There is a clear line drawn in the sand, one which human adults learn pretty early on.  And one which I would fully expect both men and women to know.  Day is under no obligation to draw a line in the sand for Frank in order to expect him to have the common courtesy and simple respect not to slap her ass. 

Its the reason why, if I were to steal something from someone, they don't really need to sit me down and draw me a clear line in the sand by telling me that stealing from them is wrong.

In fact, there is really no other situation where we ask a victim to draw a clear line in the sand before we hold the offender responsible.

Men should know, that women they don't know or have a relationship with don't like being slapped in the ass.  And no one needs to draw a clear line so that a man understands that.  You don't get free booty slaps until someone sits you down to draw a clear line in the sand.  Human adults should know this, and that should be the expectation.  Not that a victim need to explain it to them.

Legally, a battery is a harmful or offensive touching by the standard of a reasonable person.  frank was legally in the wrong the minute he slapped her ass......even though she didn't draw a clear line in the sand.  A reasonable woman would find being slapped in the ass by a dude she doesn't know offensive touching.  The onus is not on women to explain to men that slapping them in the ass is wrong and having to draw them clear lines in the sand.  

If I come from a family where we all punch each other in the throat, it doesn't mean I can go around doing it to people until they draw me a line in the sand.  I can't say that I punched my Nana in the throat and she was cool with it.  The person I punched in the throat still has a case, even if they didn't draw a clear line in the sand telling me that they would prefer not to be throat punched.

Edited July 11, 2016 by RCharter

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, icemiser69 said:

In general, many people are willing to do any number of things to get noticed on a reality show.  I also believe that TPTB might be willing to instigate controversial conduct in an effort to drive up those ratings, or at least create buzz for a very poorly cast season..

Given Frank's line of work, it seems incredibly stupid to me that he would act in any controversial way at all.  This isn't the old days, when most viewers seperated what went on in the house with how house guests may act in the real world.  We don't know any of these house guests, we only get to see a snapshot of how they act over a short period of time.  And, if you are like me, who doesn't read spoilers, and who also doesn't watch the live feeds or After Dark, the only thing I end up seeing is what I presume is a heavily edited, perhaps skewed, synopsis of what goes on in that house.  Plus, we don't have a clue what is going on behind the scenes that never gets filmed..

I realize that medical sales can be an old boys network.  And I realize that in the industry a lot of things can be swept under the rug.  But still, I can't imagine any medical sales company being okay with you publicly harassing women.  You can tell a-hole sexist jokes, but you can't be publicly showing the world you're a sexist.

I tried to look up with medical company he worked for, because if its big pharma, or a big device company -- he is in big trouble.

But someone was saying it may just be like a phone job, which would make more sense.

[ghoulina]

18 minutes ago, RCharter said:

If I come from a family where we all punch each other in the throat, it doesn't mean I can go around doing it to people until they draw me a line in the sand.  I can't say that I punched my Nana in the throat and she was cool with it.  The person I punched in the throat still has a case, even if they didn't draw a clear line in the sand telling me that they would prefer not to be throat punched.

This is a very good point. I mentioned earlier that my boys have been raised from day one to know they can't put their hands on other people without permission. But I will say, within the home there are different boundaries. I have a daughter as well, and all 3 of them love wrestling and snuggling with each other. But when they play with other kids, they're never as physical. They know that there are different standards. So if my little ones get that, why can't Frank? 

[Nashville]

5 minutes ago, RCharter said:

Men should know, that women they don't know or have a relationship with don't like being slapped in the ass.  And no one needs to draw a clear line so that a man understands that.  You don't get free booty slaps until someone sits you down to draw a clear line in the sand.  Human adults should know this, and that should be the expectation.  Not that a victim need to explain it to them.

...

If I come from a family where we all punch each other in the throat, it doesn't mean I can go around doing it to people until they draw me a line in the sand.  I'm a human adult, I know that is wrong.

While I agree with your post, I see one potential flaw.  Relatively speaking, a biped mammal may be able speak intelligibly, stand upright, and not be totally covered with body hair - but that doesn't make them a fully developed human.  To my sorrow I've known several - hell, many even - "people" whose moral and social development were about as thickly nuanced as a layer of sweat, and if you scratched the surface you were through the layer just that quick to a grunting beast aware of no significant conscious entities in existence other than itself.  To their credit, though, they frequently mimic humans very well - well enough to get a slot on a "reality" TV show, even.  :P

[RedheadZombie]

1 hour ago, RCharter said:

I directly quoted your post.  I do think that you are in essence saying both that Day is complicit in not telling Frank to stop, and that she is under an obligation, and that without doing so, she doesn't have a case.  Which would imply that Frank doesn't really have any responsibility for his actions, or wouldn't have to face any consequences for his actions unless he has been told and the clear line has been drawn.

There is a clear line drawn in the sand, one which human adults learn pretty early on.  And one which I would fully expect both men and women to know.  Day is under no obligation to draw a line in the sand for Frank in order to expect him to have the common courtesy and simple respect not to slap her ass. 

Its the reason why, if I were to steal something from someone, they don't really need to sit me down and draw me a clear line in the sand by telling me that stealing from them is wrong.

In fact, there is really no other situation where we ask a victim to draw a clear line in the sand before we hold the offender responsible.

Men should know, that women they don't know or have a relationship with don't like being slapped in the ass.  And no one needs to draw a clear line so that a man understands that.  You don't get free booty slaps until someone sits you down to draw a clear line in the sand.  Human adults should know this, and that should be the expectation.  Not that a victim need to explain it to them.

Legally, a battery is a harmful or offensive touching by the standard of a reasonable person.  frank was legally in the wrong the minute he slapped her ass......even though she didn't draw a clear line in the sand.  A reasonable woman would find being slapped in the ass by a dude she doesn't know offensive touching.  The onus is not on women to explain to men that slapping them in the ass is wrong and having to draw them clear lines in the sand.  

If I come from a family where we all punch each other in the throat, it doesn't mean I can go around doing it to people until they draw me a line in the sand.  I can't say that I punched my Nana in the throat and she was cool with it.  The person I punched in the throat still has a case, even if they didn't draw a clear line in the sand telling me that they would prefer not to be throat punched.

I'm an RN, which is a female dominated world, but I worked a few years in the recovery room.  It was pretty shocking how quickly I caught the attention of a nurse anesthetist, who thought of me as fresh meat, and a surgeon.   The first guy only made continuous innuendos, but the surgeon really frightened me.  He would catch me alone with a sedated patient and say extremely inappropriate things until he finally put his hands on me.  I never officially complained and learned to hide when he was around.  I reject any suggestion that I was the one responsible for my treatment, and anyone implying such can fuck the hell off.  It's why passive women are victimized, and my co-workers should have picked up the ball because they knew what was happening.  When I see a strong woman like Day breaking down, that tells me how bad it really is in there. 

[JudyObscure]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here if we're calling immoral behavior and illegal behavior the same thing.  Any man who makes inappropriate remarks or puts his hands on a woman in the work place is morally wrong.  Any woman who hopes to prosecute that man for assault or harassment in the work place would be smart to verbalize her complaints.  It's just the way the law works and most smart women know that.  The woman isn't guilty of anything at all in either case but just like taking pictures of your bruises after being beat up is a good idea, saying "no," at some point is a good idea.  You will be asked if you said it while you're on the witness stand.  The fact that you are entirely innocent doesn't enter into it.  You wont be the person facing jail. 

[J.D.]

22 hours ago, PaperTree said:

The people have spoken.  

Frank.  You.  Are.  A.  Douche.

Pinching Nana's butt?  Ewww. Has anybody else ever heard of such a thing?

I'm glad Da' sees through his phony apology and is still gunning for him.  Now Bridget needs to find out he put Bronte up, but he'll probably sweet talk his way out of it.

Frank's nana's probably at home hoping he doesn't get evicted because she's 'safe' while he's in the BB house.  Ew.

[Wings]

6 hours ago, Nashville said:

 

My favoritest part:  Frank goes with one of his original choices: Bronte. As much control as he has over Bridgette, he clearly doesn't know that she's in an alliance with Bronte and Natalie. In the DR, Bridgette vows revenge against whomever secretly nominated her fellow Spy Girl. "You have no idea who the heck you're messing with," she grits, with the steely determination of a moth trying to get in through a closed window.

 

This is hysterical.  

[backformore]

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

I'm an RN, which is a female dominated world, but I worked a few years in the recovery room.  It was pretty shocking how quickly I caught the attention of a nurse anesthetist, who thought of me as fresh meat, and a surgeon.   The first guy only made continuous innuendos, but the surgeon really frightened me.

Yes, I worked in the nursing department of a hospital (not as a nurse) 2nd shift when I was in college.   I still remember a couple of doctors who at the elevator would repeat the same joke "Are you going down?"  "No, up"  "Oh, I was hoping you were GOING DOWN!"  the last accompanied by a rude gesture.  The other thing I will never forget, a man twice my age who kept asking me out.  I refused.  He was a department head.  He would have me paged to go to a certain location - and he would be there, alone, with dinner, or a gift. He bought me a sapphire ring, which I refused.   I refused everything.  I finally went to my supervisor (assistant director of nursing)  about the issue, only to be told that the man was "a nice guy"  and that I should give him a chance.  She also asked me if the reason I wouldn't date him was because he was of another race.  Right, a creepy older married guy stalks me, but I have a RACE problem?   I knew I was safe when I saw him talking to another woman - and she was wearing that ring. 

Sorry for the tangent, but this shit brings up all kinds of stuff for me. It was so long ago, and I will never forget the feelings.  In the 70's, this was what women encountered and expected in a lot of work places, and end up feeling helpless and vulnerable.   Frank is a throwback to that era, when women had two choices - tolerate the abuse, or quit.  That is what Da' and the other women are faced with. 

[hnygrl]

Quote

I was married to a guy like Frank for 9 years.  He would pin me down and "tickle" me and when it upset me I was the horrible person that couldn't be "played" with - then it would be followed by hours or days of silent treatment.  He loved to go to the pool so he could "playfully" dunk me - there was nothing playful about it - he was aggressive - and when I would call him on it I got the same "Fine I just won't play with you anymore" followed by more silent treatment. Can't even tell you how many times I had hand prints on my butt, and don't even get me started on the crappy things he would say to me to make sure my self-esteem was kept at a pretty low level.

I'm not a little girly girl - I played rugby and can take being roughed up - but his behaviour was cruel and manipulative and that is exactly how I see Frank - I was having flashbacks last night. 

And like Frank he saw NOTHING wrong with what he was doing - it was me that was the issue - I couldn't take his joking around.  He felt like he was entitled to do what he wanted and his behavior was perfectly acceptable.  Didn't matter when we talked about it - I was wrong - always wrong.

Man, your post gave me flashbacks to my youth. I grew up in a household of men, and got treated this way regularly. It got so bad that as an adult, I didn't realize I COULD Say no without being laughed at or derided.

I don't think any woman should have to "explain" to a grown ass man why slapping her on the ass and calling her a slut (heh heh heh) is not funny or cute. And I get it. Da'Vonne is having the devil's own time. She got booted week 2 last time and sees anything she says or does that draws attention to herself as a ticket out the door. It must have been really really bad for her to finally not care and speak up. Gee, this week, these people.

I don't ever want anyone to go through that. I have a niece that recently left her husband because he treated her that way. That exact way. And nobody understood why she left until she spilled her guts later on.

[xtwheeler]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here if we're calling immoral behavior and illegal behavior the same thing.  Any man who makes inappropriate remarks or puts his hands on a woman in the work place is morally wrong.  Any woman who hopes to prosecute that man for assault or harassment in the work place would be smart to verbalize her complaints.  It's just the way the law works and most smart women know that.  The woman isn't guilty of anything at all in either case but just like taking pictures of your bruises after being beat up is a good idea, saying "no," at some point is a good idea.  You will be asked if you said it while you're on the witness stand.  The fact that you are entirely innocent doesn't enter into it.  You wont be the person facing jail. 

How does a woman who is a victim of sexual harassment end up facing jail?

And actually, you're pretty dead wrong in the balance of your post, too. One does not have any obligation to object to legally culpable behavior in the workplace before it occurs. You don't get one free pass at grabass just because no one objected yet. The fact it is legally defined as a hostile work environment is YOUR business to know--EVERYONE'S business to know.

You are also conflating criminally culpable behavior like criminal assault and the tort of assault. The vast, vast majority of workplace harassment cases are handled civilly, not criminally, and I have to tell you, nobody is facing jail there.

[brdwygurl]

16 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Once Da'Vonne told Frank that she didn't like what he was doing he was inarguably in the wrong.  Every time he touched her after that he was clearly, legally, in the wrong.   I think the show should have removed him then, just like they removed one man for "kidding around" with a knife and another for throwing chairs.

 And when she yelled and told him to stop he responded...

Spoiler

(Laughing) she really likes it

 How absurd would it be to say, to someone who had just had their purse snatched....

"well did you sit him down and tell him you didn't want him to take your purse?"   Because you know he grabs his mom's purse at home all the time and it's not a problem. 

 I am shocked (though I shouldn't be) that he has not been removed from the show the very first time he slapped her ass.  But the fact that it wasn't a one time thing, and he STILL is in the house is unconscionable.

 People have been removed for much less (chest bumping) and been allowed to stay despite doing much worse (burning with a cigarette) depending on how TPTB feel about them 

[Lamb18]

Frank is nasty. And his behavior is about power and arrogance, not sex. (I think most people here see that.) He feels safe and knows he has power, and treating the women that way is telling them through his actions that he has power over them. (Or that he thinks he does.) I bet if he was on last season he would be slapping Johnny Mac's and Steve's butts, too, because they aren't muscle-bound "strong" guys and therefore "safe" to intimidate, but would be best pals with Austin. If any of the women would retaliate, he'd call them bitches because he was only kidding when he did everything and didn't mean anything offensive and they should have known that.

[CountryGirl]

It's a pretty safe bet Frank is a pet of the producers (otherwise, why would he have been brought back).

All this talk about repercussions will, sadly, go the way of Evil Dick's threats to anally rape Jen, not to mention pouring water over her head and burning her with a cigarette. What was his punishment again? Oh, that's right, winning the half-million.

I sincerely hope he is voted out next week because slapping asses, calling women "sluts," and dunking women in pools just makes me sick to look at him. Not that he'll understand in the slightest that this is the reason why.

Somewhere, Boogie is feeling pretty smugly superior right now (not that he should, but even he didn't slap any asses that I'm aware of).

[autumnh]

Why is Frank still there?

He is so disrespectful and the powers that be are just allowing it to go on. Shame.

[xtwheeler]

When Da' walked through the room where Cory (?) and Paulie were talking shirtless, and walked right past them into the other room, and they followed her, I said, "oh, yeah, just what she wants. She pretty clearly demonstrated she didn't want to talk to you." Then they made a Da' sandwich and I said, "well, honestly, that was probably pretty comforting" and my husband shot me a look and walked out of the room. Oops.

Though, on further ADULT as opposed to horny teen reflection, had I just walked the Frank gauntlet of sexual harassment, I'm not sure I would have been up for being the filling in that sandwich either. In my experience, that is the kind of experience that puts you completely off human interaction, particularly with other men, no matter how innocent or well-intentioned, for a long time.

[backformore]

1 hour ago, xtwheeler said:

Though, on further ADULT as opposed to horny teen reflection, had I just walked the Frank gauntlet of sexual harassment, I'm not sure I would have been up for being the filling in that sandwich either. In my experience, that is the kind of experience that puts you completely off human interaction, particularly with other men, no matter how innocent or well-intentioned, for a long time.

I agree.  Getting a hug from a boyfriend or close friend - OK.    From two guys whom you don't know well and who joke around with the guy who just harassed you?   NO.

[RCharter]

21 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I think we're talking at cross purposes here if we're calling immoral behavior and illegal behavior the same thing.  Any man who makes inappropriate remarks or puts his hands on a woman in the work place is morally wrong.  Any woman who hopes to prosecute that man for assault or harassment in the work place would be smart to verbalize her complaints.  It's just the way the law works and most smart women know that.  The woman isn't guilty of anything at all in either case but just like taking pictures of your bruises after being beat up is a good idea, saying "no," at some point is a good idea.  You will be asked if you said it while you're on the witness stand.  The fact that you are entirely innocent doesn't enter into it.  You wont be the person facing jail. 

No, legally a battery is a harmful or offensive touching.  I didn't make that up, the court system did.  So yeah, what Frank did, was a battery.  legally.

And no, you do not need to verbalize your complaints in the case of a battery.  The same way if you slap someone in the face they don't need to say "ow, can you stop slapping me in the face" for it to be called a battery.  I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but you're mistaken.

If a reasonable person would find the touching offensive, it is a battery.  Most reasonable women would find a person they don't really know slapping their ass as offensive.

You can be asked on the witness stand any number of things.  The jury will only be asked to judge a battery by the standard of whether the touching was offensive by the standard of a reasonable person.  In fact, legally, saying that you didn't actually hurt someone is not a defense to battery.

[xtwheeler]

9 hours ago, brdwygurl said:

On 7/11/2016 at 11:55 AM, JudyObscure said:

Once Da'Vonne told Frank that she didn't like what he was doing he was inarguably in the wrong.  Every time he touched her after that he was clearly, legally, in the wrong.   I think the show should have removed him then, just like they removed one man for "kidding around" with a knife and another for throwing chairs.

 And when she yelled and told him to stop he responded...

No.  No, this is not how this works.  Not at all.  If someone punches you in the face, do they get one free punch, after which, *if you object* they are then in the wrong if they continue to commit battery against you?  Slapping someone on the ass is legally indistinguishable from punching them in the face in terms of what constitutes battery.  It is an offensive touching.  The fact that *sometimes* someone *might* welcome or enjoy that kind of touching (after all, plenty of people like everything up to and including a punch in the face, and it is their right to consent to same, making it not battery) does not make it automatically legal until you object.  There is no one free pass at grabass just like there is not one free pass at slapping someone's face.  If you undertake such an action, not knowing for certain that such an action is, in fact, welcomed by that particular target of such action, you are always running the risk of it being unwelcome, and thus falling into the legal definition of a criminal battery, or invoking tort liability for tortious battery/offensive touching.

Now, in the real world, while legally every "offensive touching" technically falls under the definition of battery, of course it has to pass the "is this rational?" test.  (Usually.)  So, while I find my creepy oily bohunk brother-in-law touching my arm deeply offensive, certainly it does not arise to actionable battery, criminal or civil.

HOWEVER, Da' and Frank are in their workplace.  They are co-workers.  The fact that they are working a "social game" is irrelevant (my office is one big social game too).  The fact that they live there 24 hours a day is irrelevant.  He has engaged in an apparent pattern of sexual harassment and the establishment of a hostile work environment for Da' and likely others in the house as well.  She has objected.  CBS has certainly seen the footage.  They are on notice.  Frank had the responsibility coming into this house to know that it is not OK to slap women on the ass with whom you do not have an established relationship and an understanding about such things.  You would not do it in a boardroom.  I would not do it in a courtroom.  You would not do it in a classroom.  Our lifeguards would not do it on the pool deck.  This. Is. Their. Work. Place.

What makes it even worse is that Da' knows her employers are aware of it and have not intervened. Complaining about it and making a big deal about it may cost her her "job" here.  She will be the spoil-sport who can't go along with "the house" and "he was just playing' and "boys will be boys."  She has very little recourse right now other than do what generations of women have had to do -- put up with it or lose your job.  Her "HR" department knows it is going on.  They know she has complained.  They know she has objected.  She knows they have not intervened.  She knows they have not put a stop to the behavior.  She knows that not putting up with it may cost her her job.

That is textbook hostile work environment right there, and the fact that she has to put up with it in order to stay safe from Frank's vote also makes it a quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Da' drove me a little bananas last year, but this year, I am Here. For. Mama. Da'. and I think she is killing it.  She shouldn't have to put up with workplace grabass to keep her job.

[LoneHaranguer]

43 minutes ago, xtwheeler said:

What makes it even worse is that Da' knows her employers are aware of it and have not intervened. Complaining about it and making a big deal about it may cost her her "job" here.  She will be the spoil-sport who can't go along with "the house" and "he was just playing' and "boys will be boys."

No, she'll be the person who isn't complying with the terms of the contract she signed. Although the contract specifically prohibits contestants from engaging in non-consensual sexual contact, physical violence or intimidation, it also allows for contestants to gain an advantage by pushing the boundaries on such things to "mentally and emotionally challenge" other contestants. The contract explicitly leaves it entirely up to the Producers to decide when someone has crossed the line. Anyone coming back for a second season should know what they're signing up for.

[Nashville]

9 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

No, she'll be the person who isn't complying with the terms of the contract she signed. Although the contract specifically prohibits contestants from engaging in non-consensual sexual contact, physical violence or intimidation, it also allows for contestants to gain an advantage by pushing the boundaries on such things to "mentally and emotionally challenge" other contestants. The contract explicitly leaves it entirely up to the Producers to decide when someone has crossed the line. Anyone coming back for a second season should know what they're signing up for.

I'd have severe doubts about the ability of a civil contract to override criminal case law - but hey, maybe that's just me.

[xtwheeler]

4 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

No, she'll be the person who isn't complying with the terms of the contract she signed. Although the contract specifically prohibits contestants from engaging in non-consensual sexual contact, physical violence or intimidation, it also allows for contestants to gain an advantage by pushing the boundaries on such things to "mentally and emotionally challenge" other contestants. The contract explicitly leaves it entirely up to the Producers to decide when someone has crossed the line. Anyone coming back for a second season should know what they're signing up for.

That is positively nonsensical, and perhaps the most bizarre interpretation of a contractual obligation I've ever seen attempted.  

Can you specify exactly which provision of the contract Da' would herself be violating? Refusing to be subject to, as you say, "non-consensual sexual contact, physical violence or intimidation" (which you admit is specifically contractually forbidden) is not, itself, conceivably a violation of HER contractual obligations.  If absolutely nothing else, she has absolutely no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to stay in that workplace if she finds it unacceptable.  She may face penalties, she may face a prohibition on working during the time the show airs, but she cannot be physically forced to endure this assault and battery.  

Furthermore, the contract is executed and performed in California, and as such will most likely be subject to the application of California law, which has a long-established, heavily weighted public policy in favor of protecting employees from draconian contracts, as well as shielding victims from the sexually exploitative advances of co-workers.  The "she should know what she's signing up for" argument (particularly for someone who only spent barely two weeks in the house last time) is noxiously close to "she shouldn't have walked down that street" because she "should have known rapists abound."

Finally, CBS has had absolutely NO problem expelling contestants of this franchise for unacceptable behavior before, and as such has established a precedent of protecting its employees from battery (toothbrush in the toilet, anyone?).  I would argue Da' was entitled to rely on CBS's precedent of protecting its employees from crimes and torts committed by other contestants, particularly once she had expressed her disgust.  

OK, now really finally, although we know CBS is mostly staffed by morons, they're extra moronic if they are choosing the publicity that comes with the "CBS didn't protect me from sexual harassment" (which someday WILL turn into a rape claim on some TV show somewhere) over "CBS expelled these horrendous human beings for being horrendous human beings."  The perpetrators of the battery on Marcel on Bravo were expelled, and at least one was extremely  popular, and Marcel was . . . not, necessarily.  Bravo milked the good publicity from that Top Chef moment for dayyyys, and CBS would be wise to do the same.  Yes, I know I'm expecting too much from these monkeys.

But, if you have the Big Brother contract I'd be happy to see the contract provision you think Da' would be violating by refusing to be the victim of a crime.  I only have the Survivor contract, and that is a whole other ball of inapplicable wax.

[CreamedPeas]

Does anyone else think that Frank also targets Da' more so because he expects her to blow up big time like she did on her last season when she got upset about things and he's hoping for a self eviction or would also settle for the other houseguests to look at her as a loose cannon and be more willing to get rid of her ASAP? It just occurred to me that on top of being a 'handsy' asshole, that this may be part of his game play. 

[xtwheeler]

Just now, CreamedPeas said:

Does anyone else think that Frank also targets Da' more so because he expects her to blow up big time like she did on her last season when she got upset about things and he's hoping for a self eviction or would also settle for the other houseguests to look at her as a loose cannon and be more willing to get rid of her ASAP? It just occurred to me that on top of being a 'handsy' asshole, that this may be part of his game play. 

That's a good point.  Aside from the typical reasons assholes pick on particular victims, I would assume there is some game play reason.  I assume some of it is simply that he *knows* her personality better, and can thus predict her response better. That feeling of familiarity probably contributes, too.  Is there really another alpha female in the group who would stand up to the Returning Vet Frank rather than try to endure? There aren't a whole bunch of women that stand out to me as particularly assertive, which is in and of itself a problem.

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, CreamedPeas said:

Does anyone else think that Frank also targets Da' more so because he expects her to blow up big time like she did on her last season when she got upset about things and he's hoping for a self eviction or would also settle for the other houseguests to look at her as a loose cannon and be more willing to get rid of her ASAP? It just occurred to me that on top of being a 'handsy' asshole, that this may be part of his game play. 

No "maybe" about it; this is definitely part of Frank's gameplay.  Frank's very much a "If you're not with me, you're against me" kind of guy, and a major part of his "with me" criteria - possibly the most significant part - is the degree of tongue you're using when you kiss his ass.  Frank is the King of FrankWorld, and any dissension or resistance to the King's Way marks you an enemy of the State.  Frank's primary weapons against enemies are:

1. Isolation.  Your enemy can't fight you if s/he can't marshal any troops - or allies in this case - so poison every potential ally against your target; if you're successful, then they can't fight back.  Frank religiously subscribes to the George W. Bush School of Communications, the primary tenet of which is Repetition = Truth, regardless of fact.  If Frank goes on incessantly about how crazy/destructive/vindictive/threatening/etc. an individual (ANY individual) is day after day, night after night, week after week... eventually some of the other HGs will begin to believe him to the point of avoiding any strategic interaction with frank's victim - and quite possibly any social interaction as well.  Paulie is a perfect example of this.  Paulie already knew Tiffany way better than Frank ever thought of.  After countless conversations with Frank repeatedly bashing Tiff over and over and over and over again, however, Paulie has become blinded to the evidence of his own perceptions and takes Frank's take as gospel.
2. Destabilization.  The moment Frank decides you're an enemy, the slurs and insults start.  Whether even Frank believes his own slams is immaterial; what IS important in Frank's mind is getting you worried about whether anybody else is believing them.  Reacting to his crap pushes you into a purely defensive posture - one in which you are off-balance, and therefore unable to mount an effective offense.

[mojoween]

I can't articulate any better about why Frank is despicable so I'll just say that he is so far to the left of good-looking as to be a troglodyte and what he did to Nicole in the pool made me hyperventilate just watching it.

Hot Cheetos?  Is that a real thing?  If so, why?

Paul is growing on me which I NEVER thought could happen but sometimes he says funny things (my band sucks) and I forget how irritating he was.  Must have been annoyance by association.

Bridgett.  I hope she doesn't act like that in the ER.  You're not going to make me forget my broken leg by giggling at me.

[Nashville]

2 hours ago, mojoween said:

Hot Cheetos?  Is that a real thing?  If so, why?

Spicy-hot, not temperature-hot.

 

Quote

Paul is growing on me which I NEVER thought could happen but sometimes he says funny things (my band sucks) and I forget how irritating he was.  Must have been annoyance by association.

Paul is still relatively clueless Game-wise, but he's gold for one-liners.  I'm gonna miss that boy when he goes - and if that's not pre-Jury, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul doesn't float up to about F3.  Thanks to Josea and Victor, Paul has already learned (via trial by fire) a few of the hard-and-fast beginner's rules of BB:

1. Sticking your neck out is a good way to get it chopped off.
2. The ones who crow loudest about "running the House" are usually wrong, especially in the earliest stages of the Game.
3. Don't celebrate that 110%-sure eviction until after you've seen them walk out the door.