S18.E04: Heightened Emotions

[WendyCR72]

A sexually assaulted athlete's double life could destroy her Olympic career and ruin the case against her attacker; Rollins sister is released from prison on parole.

[Laurie4H]

So if you are an escort and go to a room and have sex it's still considered rape if they are rough? 

And how was this women considered "gorgeous" and "looks like a model" ?   

[CleoCaesar]

Props to the poster last week who said it seems like this season is tacking "gray rape" subjects. Certainly seems like it now. This week: can you rape a hooker?

The whole thing seemed rushed and unrealistic to me. The husband was WAY too laidback about his wife screwing johns, presumably unprotected, while married to him.

Oh, oh Lord, WHY are the writers forcing Kim Rollins on us?? They can't seriously think anyone ENJOYS seeing her. And seriously, she's bipolar so that explains everything? The hell? (How convenient too, that the prostitute also has bipolar!)

[RafaelBarbas]

That was certainly one of the most memorable courtroom scenes this franchise has ever brought...

I actually liked this episode. Again, not a masterpiece, but I was hardly cringing like I was in the Warren era.  

[Aliconehead]

well we have the inspiration

http://abcnews.go.com/US/olympian-turned-vegas-escort-suzy-favor-hamilton-sex/story?id=33655414

. A young relative was recently diagnosed with Bi Polar, I could see her behavior in both the victim and the sister. 

Yes you can rape a prostitute. If you contracted for vaginal intercourse and when he goes for another area you did not agree to, you can renegotiate or say no. If you say no, it IS rape. Just because some one is a sex worker does not mean they loose the right to consent to certain acts. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Aliconehead

[chick binewski]

I'm with @CleoCaesar on the convenient diagnosis issue. Rollins' screw up sister who makes excuses for everything wouldn't tell her cop sister she has an actual explanation for some of her behaviors? At least Liv's hair looked fabulous tonight. 

And is that the end of Tucker? I need to see him have a smoldering face-off with Elliot when Meloni returns for the series finale! Why can't we have nice things?

[mojito]

This episode seemed to be only a half hour. The plot kind of whizzed by quickly. I, too, thought the husband was far too laid back about his wife's sexual activity. But then I thought about how she was his meal ticket. He seemed more concerned with her future than their relationship.I don't recall many times when they allowed someone to plea and I was satisfied with the outcome.  I liked this episode.

[Everleigh]

This episode felt very disjointed to me. Like it was just jumping from one thing to the next and nothing flowed.

At first I thought the girl playing Jenna was just over-acting but I guess that was intentional to foreshadow the character's bi-polar disorder. 

For some reason I thought we already knew Rollins' sister was bi-polar. I guess the reveal was just so predictable that it felt like old news before it even happened.

I don't buy that Wheeler or his presumably high priced attorney would take a deal that would require him to serve time. There was likely to be one or two people on the jury (probably more) who have that backwards "you can't rape a hooker" mentality. 

[wknt3]

The Good:
Used the entire cast.
No Noah drama!
Centered around a sexually based offense and didn't try to do too much.
It was nice to see a plea bargain that was presented as a huge trauma for the victim or some big victory for either side, but just part of the process.
No huge problems for a change. It actually realized it's potential.

The Bad:
Why weren't they talking a lot more about the victim's obvious mental issues? When they've done this before they usually had them talking about how the victim was intense, traumatized and acting out, etc. so they didn't look like complete idiots when they eventually came out with a diagnosis.
One of the things I've liked about the new SVU is that they seem to be trying to rebuild Rollins and basically ignore a lot of her personal life and past stupidity. Why bring back her sister? Why make her so dense that she didn't realize what was going on once she saw the pills were lithium? Why make the audience sit through Liv(!) lecturing her about choices and no more chances?
Pod Barba continues. He should have been asking a lot more questions about the victim's behavior from the get go. And it's getting really tiresome seeing Barba of all people needing to be lectured by Benson about advocating for victims.
Speaking of St. Benson. The single biggest problem continues to be the way Benson does everything. I know it seems like I harp on this every week, but that's because it's a glaring problem every week. Why not take the money you spent on Kim Rollins, on the stupid shootout from the premiere, etc. and bring in another detective? A new squad member would provide a reason for exposition, someone Benson actually would have a reason to lecture, and give us something new. They can still do what they did with Sam Waterson and keep her as the star and much more active than the previous COs - running interrogations, consulting with Barba (as long as she doesn't give orders!), in court, etc. Sort of like The Closer or Major Crimes. And we wouldn't have to wondering why super sensitive experienced expert master SVU detective doesn't realize that her victim needs help.

Overall this wasn't a home run, but it was a solid base hit. It doesn't feel like they wasted a lot of potential. I probably like it more than any episode so far this season because of that. It was never going to be great and it's been done before, but it didn't leave me frustrated that it could have been a lot better or has been done a lot better before. I'd be perfectly happy with most of the season like this if you can give us standouts like the beginning of last season and not the beginning of this season. As long as you give Barba his cojones back that is!

[Frisky Wig]

2 hours ago, Laurie4H said:

So if you are an escort and go to a room and have sex it's still considered rape if they are rough? 

Like aliconehead said, if the escort and John agree on a certain type of sex and he forces her to do another type, it's rape. If they don't agree to have rough sex, and he makes her have rough sex, it's rape. If she's saying "no" and "stop" and he continues regardless, it's rape. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Frisky Wig

[JyDanzig]

How did the victim's husband happen to show up at this random hotel bar at just the right moment to ruin the whole operation?

I am someone who actually likes Kim Rollins appearances, but I REALLY did not like that last moment.  We're supposed to think Amanda is a bad sister for not taking a greater interest in Kim's life?  That's a really gross insinuation, given what we've seen of this relationship so far, whether Kim has a diagnosis now or not.  Also, didn't her last appearance end with an innocent man being prosecuted for crimes that were Kim's fault, and also with her getting engaged to her defense attorney?  Those do not seem like threads you can just drop!

[Snookums]

Quote

Yes you can rape a prostitute. If you contracted for vaginal intercourse and when he goes for another area you did not agree to, you can renegotiate or say no. If you say no, it IS rape. Just because some one is a sex worker does not mean they loose the right to consent to certain acts. 

This cannot be stressed enough. Rape is rape no matter who the victim is or what he/she does for a living. 

[shapeshifter]

When the victim was on the stand, she said that from the first time she was assumed to be a prostitute, she interpreted that to mean she had an attractive, feminine body. I guess she not only doesn't know what a prostitute looks like when she sees one, but she's never watched crime shows — both of which could be possible since she was obsessed with her training. 

[Spartan Girl]

I'm joining everyone in calling bullshit over Kim being bipolar. The woman is a sociopath. Let's not forget she tried to frame Rollins for killing her boyfriend to IAB.

Dammit so Tucker and Liv are fizzling out?! I hate this show.

[sockii]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I'm joining everyone in calling bullshit over Kim being bipolar. The woman is a sociopath. Let's not forget she tried to frame Rollins for killing her boyfriend to IAB.

Dammit so Tucker and Liv are fizzling out?! I hate this show.

I totally agree that Kim is a sociopath. And from my (unfortunate) personal experience with having one of those in my family, sociopaths can be great at faking/claiming to have other illnesses if it suits their purposes/makes them seem more sympathetic. Of course, I don't have much faith in the writers being that clever.

I don't know if that one scene could be taken as Tuckson "fizzling out" but I thought the dialog transition there was hilariously bad...Secretly a hooker/Every relationship has secrets/Oh hey so how are things with Tucker?

[ForeverAlone]

Generally speaking I liked this episode, certainly more than the first three from this season. Though I thought that the Olympics stuff was a bit overdrawn, but I guess some of it was needed to explain some of the victim and her husband's behavior. 

I do wish for maybe something a bit different in terms of the courtroom arguments, only because the defense's arguments felt rather off about why she supposedly claimed rape. I mean, I could see that if there were few injuries, but she sustained fairly serious injuries. But maybe those arguments were simply to try and gloss over the reality of what she experienced.

I can never have too much Barba, so I always wish there was more and he was more of his forceful self in the courtroom. I think it would also have been good to see the differing arguments both sides would make about raping a prostitute (I think this episode would have benefited from closing arguments). 

Basically  maybe focus on the legal aspects of the case, just because it is not a type of case this show typically delves into. Of course if the writers had jettisoned the Kim Rollins' subplot, there would have been more time to explore that aspect of the case. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by ForeverAlone

[StaceyNotStacie]

I didn't love this episode. Rollins' sister always grates on my last nerve; the way she was chatting with Carusi, I'm hoping they're not doing a triangle. 

[Primetimer]

An Olympic pole-vaulter's adrenaline cravings make her a (ripped-from-the-headlines) target. Related: Kim Rollins got parole. HMMM.

View the full article

[devious455]

How amusingly convenient and unimaginative that Kim suffers from same illness as victim in this episode. But I can accept anything that would spare us from more troubles caused by her. 

BTW are the writers trying to make amends for screwing up Amanda all those years? They made her reunite with her sister, they are writing her more or less competent, gave her baby that is not in a constant danger and they are probably going to give her boyfriend. If they want to keep her in the show it's probably a good decision not to write her as terrible white trash cop. I've found myself liking her quite a lot this season. 

I liked this episode. It mostly make sense. Besides Kim nobody was overly obnoxious. Or incompetent. My bar is this low :)

One thing though. Why Barba didn't bring up some medical expert to stress how serious Jenna's injuries were? It would be harder for the defense attorney to insist that it was just rough sex. That courtroom scene where the victim started undressing was super weird and uncomfortable. The actress was amazing though. 

Overall, it was solid. No Barba in two weeks. I'm not sure now if I even want him be a part of D.T. episode. 

[MaryHedwig]

Quote

 If they don't agree to have rough sex, and he makes her have rough sex, it's rape. If she's saying "no" and "stop" and he continues regardless, it's rape. 

Also, as Barba alluded to on the courtroom steps, consent for any kind of sex can be revoked at any time, even during the act.

Speaking of Barba, I got the same warm vibes from watching him cover the undressing victim with his coat that I do when I watch firefighter rescues.

[mccartygirl]

4 hours ago, MaryHedwig said:

Speaking of Barba, I got the same warm vibes from watching him cover the undressing victim with his coat that I do when I watch firefighter rescues.

I thought there was something wrong with me because I did too. Love him and Carisi! 

I know they are building this show around Olivia, but I really wish her and Rollins would go away. Or even a little less Olivia and 0 Rollins. 

[wknt3]

11 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I'm joining everyone in calling bullshit over Kim being bipolar. The woman is a sociopath. Let's not forget she tried to frame Rollins for killing her boyfriend to IAB.

Dammit so Tucker and Liv are fizzling out?! I hate this show.

 

9 hours ago, sockii said:

I totally agree that Kim is a sociopath. And from my (unfortunate) personal experience with having one of those in my family, sociopaths can be great at faking/claiming to have other illnesses if it suits their purposes/makes them seem more sympathetic. Of course, I don't have much faith in the writers being that clever.

I don't know if that one scene could be taken as Tuckson "fizzling out" but I thought the dialog transition there was hilariously bad...Secretly a hooker/Every relationship has secrets/Oh hey so how are things with Tucker?

Yeah there is nothing in the past to make Kim being bipolar anything other than a retcon, a cheap attempt at connecting the subplot to the main plot, yet another ploy or some combination of those possibilities. I'm wondering if this is part of hitting the reset button on Rollins? They seem to have done a lot to try to rebuild the character the last couple seasons either explicitly overcoming her problems or just playing down and ignoring some of the overdone elements. Maybe they are just going to say she was crazy, she is better now, and we aren't going to see much of her going forward? I hope they aren't clever enough to make this another ploy - I really don't want to see more of her.

I don't think this is Tuckson fizzling out either - I think they are setting up more personal drama for Benson. She has her own secrets that she has been keeping from Tucker. My guess is this a reference to Chekhov's Giant Glass of Wine.

[Snookums]

I hope the secret of Tuckson is that they keep teasing "problems" and at the end of the season get married. Lame but no lamer then most of the stunts this show pulls, and I seriously cannot take any more  Martyr Benson. Let her have a nice family for God's sake and MOVE ON.

[Kel Varnsen]

Not a bad episode although the actress playing the victim seemed like she was doing an impression of Clair Danes's character from Homeland as a way to play bipolar.

As far as Rollins and her sister wouldn't the sister have mentioned her disorder and the fact that she wss seeing a therapist during her parole hearing (that Rollins attended )?

[yourmomiseasy]

I laughed so hard during this part of the defense's cross of Olivia:

lawyer: Isn't it possible that these injuries are consistent with consensual, albeit physical, sex?

Olivia: In my opinion, no.

lawyer: You're a police officer, not a doctor, correct?

Olivia: Been an SVU detective for 17 years.

lawyer: Which means that you are qualified to investigate rape cases, not evaluate medical injuries.  Nothing further.

 

So then why did he ask her?  I guess if she'd said yes she'd have been qualified.  

[hatchetgirl]

I am no over the goofy "hit us over the head" with the final scene, scenes...  

[WendyCR72]

34 minutes ago, hatchetgirl said:

I am no over the goofy "hit us over the head" with the final scene, scenes...  

I think some of this comes down to the fact the show is old. And we've seen this formula a billion times for 17 years. If it was new, it may pack more of a punch (yet still be corny/stupid). But as the Barenaked Ladies once sang, "It's all been done before."

[kelslamu]

So if the agent testified to the victim disclosing the rape over the phone to him, that wouldn't have amounted to hearsay?  I also wondered why the defense attorney asked Olivia if she were a doctor.  Why ask the question in the first place.  I thought maybe he was trying to have the jury think she shouldn't have brought the case forward.  I doubt that much thought was put into the dialog though.   I was almost as disappointed as last week's episode.  

[yogi2014L]

I think they needed to pick a lane - either go with the olympian with a secret OR the mental illness route. It was too much. or maybe she was on PEDs and that caused her to mentally go off the deep end because and be a prostitute/alcoholic/whatever. That would have made way more sense.

Did anyone catch Barbas face when he was informed she was an Olympic pole vaulter? Thats kind of how I felt. lol

Glad we all agree rape can happen at any time to any person, but i am really SICK of them putting the victims undercover. LOL

Also-I had to laugh when she started taking off her cothes and shouting her stats. I bench 150! And Barba being so valiant with his coat. I love him

Please- NO MORE SISTER DRAMA. Something is going to go bad with the baby- baby is going to swallow lithium or something. Its going to happen. Maybe the sister will accidentley kill the baby and Rollins will shoot her and go to jail. Then they are both off the show and we can have more Finn Carisi and Barba

[Princess Lucky]

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

As far as Rollins and her sister wouldn't the sister have mentioned her disorder and the fact that she wss seeing a therapist during her parole hearing (that Rollins attended )?

Right? Not even the therapist. Wouldn't Kim have mentioned she had been on medication for an entire YEAR? That would be the clincher for her release, she would have absolutely mentioned it at the hearing.

4 hours ago, kelslamu said:

So if the agent testified to the victim disclosing the rape over the phone to him, that wouldn't have amounted to hearsay?  I also wondered why the defense attorney asked Olivia if she were a doctor.  Why ask the question in the first place.  I thought maybe he was trying to have the jury think she shouldn't have brought the case forward.  I doubt that much thought was put into the dialog though.   I was almost as disappointed as last week's episode.  

I think the agent's testimony would be considered corroboration. They wouldn't rely on his testimony to establish what happened (hearsay, as I understand it, would be if he said "she told me he ripped her dress" etc etc, if they used it for the details), they'd just use it to prove she spoke out right after the assault (wouldn't he also be an outcry witness? Wasn't the agent the first person she called?).

So.

Better (with some decent team moments between Carisi/Benson, Carisi/Rollins, Benson/Rollins and Benson/Barba) but still lacking.

Is it a happy ending when a very promising athlete quits her career and gives up on her dreams to "get better" (magically, after about 2 days, with a fix-it pill, because that's how mental illness works) and the rapist isn't even convicted of the rape? Am I supposed to be happy, as a viewer? Is that justice? Was this ending "real life sucks and not every case results in a conviction" or was it "SVU is escapism so we show the rapists actually being punished"?

I honestly can't tell this season.

By the way, last week, the not-really-but-sort-of rapist (who was not a rapist by law, nor was he violent) took a plea deal for a lesser crime. Benson and the team saw that as a huge injustice, and proof the system is rigged to protect predators. Also, his 'victim' attempted suicide and her son actually killed himself, because the crime of that guy being a sleazebag was just too cruel.

This week, the extremely violent rapist (a rapist by every definition, legal included, and a repeat offender at that) takes a plea deal for a lesser crime. Benson and the team consider that a success. They are literally cheering and saying "it's for the best, justice was served, yay!" His victim is satisfied and happily moves on with her life, because a violent rape is something easily forgotten.

The fuck?

If it wasn't for Carisi's new hair, these episodes would be piling up on my DVR.

Speaking of, I love you @Sarah D. Bunting but the recap missed something huge:

Quote

Revelations About The Continuing Characters' Personal Lives That We Should Remember Going Forward

Carisi's single! I volunteer.

[itainttippithebird]

Quote

Is it a happy ending when a very promising athlete quits her career and gives up on her dreams to "get better" (magically, after about 2 days, with a fix-it pill, because that's how mental illness works) and the rapist isn't even convicted of the rape? Am I supposed to be happy, as a viewer? Is that justice?

Yeah, that ending was such an abrupt turnaround and the actor's affect was so fakey fake in the last 5 minutes that I definitely thought we were leading up to a "OMG, she faked it all along to make a career transition" ending. The husband spends 95% of the episode being like YOU CAN'T PROSECUTE BC YOU ARE NOTHING WITHOUT THE OLYMPICS is suddenly totally calm and peaceful and happy when it all blows up? The woman who has been on meds for two days is suddenly the paragon of stability? They're both stoked to go on TV and become mental health advocates approx one second later? They zoomed in on Rollins watching them on TV and I absolutely thought she was about to realize out loud that this really WAS all a PR set up that the couple manipulated them into, but then....nothing. I wonder if this was purposefully gray, or if the writing/acting was just off?

[itainttippithebird]

Oh and also - the cold open, where the husband is pleading her to get off the treadmill and attend to their son - made sense from the perspective of setting her up as manic depressive, but did NOT make sense in terms of his personality for the rest of the episode, and that really threw me off.

[Princess Lucky]

17 minutes ago, itainttippithebird said:

Oh and also - the cold open, where the husband is pleading her to get off the treadmill and attend to their son - made sense from the perspective of setting her up as manic depressive, but did NOT make sense in terms of his personality for the rest of the episode, and that really threw me off.

Wow! I totally forgot about that! She had a son! So her husband was totally fine with letting her mental illness go untreated, even when it was making her neglect her own child? Because money? But in the end he decided to put her health first? His switch in that scene with Carisi and Rollins at the track made no sense. At least they could have him say something like, there's still money to be made if they start advocating for mental illness. Something to explain that.  Like you said, maybe a PR set-up where the husband wanted to use her new status to propel her TV career, get her on Dancing With the Stars or something.  Nothing the husband said or did made any sense (especially the way he barged in on that meeting, as mentioned upthread. Weren't cops, like, covering the exits? To prevent the rapist from escaping? No one recognized the husband? How did he even know where his wife was? How did no one stop him before he got to the actual table?)

But I'm still hung up on the kid. I mean, they never mentioned the child again after the first scene, did they? She could have said "I want to focus on being a better mother" or something, when she thanked Rollins or even in that press conference. Just a throwaway line.

Wow.

[Amerilla]

There's nothing wrong with something in the B- or C-plot referring/paralleling/informing the A-plot, but why so clunky?  Why not just intro early in the episode - in the parole hearing scene - that Kim had been diagnosed as bipolar during her stay in jail and her adherence to her treatment plan was one of the reasons she was released and why Amanda was taking her in?

Forget that it answers nagging little questions like "Wait, Amanda was still talking to Kim after the last time we saw them together?" it also gives Amanda some base of knowledge to see the bipolar aspects of the victim's behavior, which would have made WAY more sense than that track scene. Hell, you could even give Carisi a throwaway line about a having a bipolar cousin or something so he could also have some implied knowledge.    

[katisha]

On 13/10/2016 at 3:02 PM, wknt3 said:

Speaking of St. Benson. The single biggest problem continues to be the way Benson does everything. I know it seems like I harp on this every week, but that's because it's a glaring problem every week. Why not take the money you spent on Kim Rollins, on the stupid shootout from the premiere, etc. and bring in another detective? A new squad member would provide a reason for exposition, someone Benson actually would have a reason to lecture, and give us something new. They can still do what they did with Sam Waterson and keep her as the star and much more active than the previous COs - running interrogations, consulting with Barba (as long as she doesn't give orders!), in court, etc. Sort of like The Closer or Major Crimes. And we wouldn't have to wondering why super sensitive experienced expert master SVU detective doesn't realize that her victim needs help.

Couldn't agree more.  Find some money for a new cast member, show, because it's looking ludicrous how much Benson is out and about doing grunt work when in reality she'd be a lot more desk-bound like Cragen was.  

Overall, except for the Rollins' sister part, this episode was probably the best this season (it's a low bar, I know) and held my interest a lot more than last week's farce, and it had a lot to do with the actress playing the pole vaulter.  I'm not familiar with her but she did an excellent job in making the character a lot more likeable and sympathetic than she might have otherwise been.

I also don't think they're busting up Tuckson, but it's cruel of the show to even suggest it.  I might be heartily sick of Olivia at the moment but after all these years of dedicated service to SVU and all that tragedy, for God's sake, let the woman have a happy relationship for once.

[yourmomiseasy]

3 hours ago, Princess Lucky said:

How did he even know where his wife was?

Find my iphone?

[Kel Varnsen]

The whole time i kept wondering if the victim lady  would actually lose her shot at the Olympics because of her scandal. I get that her sponsors would be gone but would the USOC cut her from the team even if she was never charged with being a prostitute?

[Monkeybball]

Okay I have like 45,000 issues with this episode as well.

Disclaimer - have not read the whole thread yet cause I'm at work and trying to type this up on the sly so forgive me if I repeat or ask questions that have already been answered.

1) I'm willing to bet that NO Olympians (save for equestrians and maybe weighlifters) have babies.  Aren't most olympians quite young? Wasn't buying it.

2) Yes you absolutely can rape a hooker.

3) I actually said out-loud: I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR DEFENSE STRATEGY, SIR! during the courtroom scene.  First, it was that he outed her as a hooker so she cried rape (btw, that's the exact OPPOSITE of the timeline in which the events occurred) then it was "he didn't find you attractive, right?"  Oh and by the way, I'm so over the defense attorneys testifying.  YOU ASK QUESTIONS, NOT MAKE STATEMENTS, EVEN AT THE END OF YOUR QUESTIONING.  SOMEONE GET THIS IN LINE!!!!

4) 4 years to get to trial in a rape case is actually about the norm.  Not 2 or 3 days.

5) Plea was bullshit considering how much they fight every other defendant on pleas.  Was it because this was a rich white guy? Huh SVU? HUH?!?!?!!! (totally opposite of their normal agenda)

6) The whole time I kept feeling like "in today's current climate, a rape victim olympian would NEVER lose her endorsements! they'd use her as a role model!" but I kept forgetting she was a hooker, and that was the problem.  They kinda shoulda focused on that part more.  Her moonlighting.  They barely even connected it to the bipolar disorder, they only went there once she took her shirt off in court.  (Btw, never would have happened).

I have to say, I am getting SO annoyed with this SVU trope (that has been going on forever, btw) of the detectives BROWBEATING these victims into testifying. "YOU HAVE TO TESTIFY!!!!" Um, no, I don't actually.  And I know cops don't act that way.  Sorry Olivia, get off your soapbox ya dumb bitch.  I'm over you.  It reminds me of the way she treated Meagan Goode in the Ray Rice episode.  You can't force these people to be victims just cause you want them too.  Oh and just fyi, this is all the prosecutor's job, anyway.

 

Barba looked good with a lil bit of gray in that hair.  Carisi is hot. Fin, gorgeous.

[ForeverAlone]

Yes, there are Olympians with babies. It is not the most common thing, but they definitely exist, even for the US team at the Rio Games. Just a few examples.

http://www.teamusa.org/News/2016/August/04/World-Class-Moms-Meet-The-10-Mothers-On-The-US-Olympic-Team

I do agree about the victim testifying, though one of the other SVU tropes I hate is when a victim or parent of a victim refuses to testify, and then is upset when their rapist goes free, or at least wonders why they don't get convicted. OR wonders why their case is derailed after they have changed their story so many times from the original report. But I also agree that it is the prosecutor's job to handle the trial side of things and would like to see that handled by Rafael (because I can NEVER have too much Rafael), but of course that would mean less screen time for Olivia, and we can't have that, now can we? *rolls eyes*

[sockii]

Anyone who suffers through NBC's Olympics coverage knows that there are Olympians with babies. Because if you're a female American Olympian athlete the first thing NBC is going to harp on is how so-and-so is a MOM and doing this FOR HER CHILDREN and to be a GREAT ROLE MODEL for her KIDS as that's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN A WOMAN'S LIFE, don't you know.

(Sorry, somewhat bitter person here who is way too sensitive to these things.)

[Monkeybball]

42 minutes ago, ForeverAlone said:

Yes, there are Olympians with babies. It is not the most common thing, but they definitely exist, even for the US team at the Rio Games. Just a few examples.

http://www.teamusa.org/News/2016/August/04/World-Class-Moms-Meet-The-10-Mothers-On-The-US-Olympic-Team

I do agree about the victim testifying, though one of the other SVU tropes I hate is when a victim or parent of a victim refuses to testify, and then is upset when their rapist goes free, or at least wonders why they don't get convicted. OR wonders why their case is derailed after they have changed their story so many times from the original report. But I also agree that it is the prosecutor's job to handle the trial side of things and would like to see that handled by Rafael (because I can NEVER have too much Rafael), but of course that would mean less screen time for Olivia, and we can't have that, now can we? *rolls eyes*

 

7 minutes ago, sockii said:

Anyone who suffers through NBC's Olympics coverage knows that there are Olympians with babies. Because if you're a female American Olympian athlete the first thing NBC is going to harp on is how so-and-so is a MOM and doing this FOR HER CHILDREN and to be a GREAT ROLE MODEL for her KIDS as that's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN A WOMAN'S LIFE, don't you know.

(Sorry, somewhat bitter person here who is way too sensitive to these things.)

ah! I see! I stand corrected.  I totally thought most Olympians were like the gymnasts age, like 14-16 or whatever they are.  Very interesting.

 

I totally agree with you about the flip side of the testifying thing, which I meant to post last week I think.  It's so annoying when the victim does testify and then they freak out and always blame OLIVIA (of course) for "YOU said I had to testify, YOU said that we would put him away!"  First of all - it's especially annoying because you know the writers totally just do this to make Olivia a victim and to make us all feel bad for her and defensive on her behalf.  Second, I don't really, because Olivia, you need to tell them that just because they testify and just because this goes to trial DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON IS GOING TO GET CONVICTED.  I feel like we do not hear that nearly enough.  We, as the audience, feel bad for Olivia because we know that it's not her fault if someone gets acquitted, but we should feel more badly about the fact that these victims are given unrealistic expectations.

And yeah, the babies are everything to a woman thing is getting really effing old.  I'm sick of both Rollins and Olivia having babies and being moms and now all of a sudden they are the authorities on everything Mom.  And Rollins being judgey about every victim who comes in with a child who's a lil irresponsible? Shame on her.  She's got the balls of a burglar to talk about other people behaving questionably.

 

EFF Kim Rollins.

 

Defense Attorney Varma is super cute.  Gorgeous actually I would say.

[MaryHedwig]

Quote

Hell, you could even give Carisi a throwaway line about a having a bipolar cousin or something so he could also have some implied knowledge.    

And someone could mention that Sabler's mother and daughter were bipolar.

[bikebrh]

  18 hours ago, ForeverAlone said:

Yes, there are Olympians with babies. It is not the most common thing, but they definitely exist, even for the US team at the Rio Games. Just a few examples.

http://www.teamusa.org/News/2016/August/04/World-Class-Moms-Meet-The-10-Mothers-On-The-US-Olympic-Team

I do agree about the victim testifying, though one of the other SVU tropes I hate is when a victim or parent of a victim refuses to testify, and then is upset when their rapist goes free, or at least wonders why they don't get convicted. OR wonders why their case is derailed after they have changed their story so many times from the original report. But I also agree that it is the prosecutor's job to handle the trial side of things and would like to see that handled by Rafael (because I can NEVER have too much Rafael), but of course that would mean less screen time for Olivia, and we can't have that, now can we? *rolls eyes*

 

  17 hours ago, sockii said:

Anyone who suffers through NBC's Olympics coverage knows that there are Olympians with babies. Because if you're a female American Olympian athlete the first thing NBC is going to harp on is how so-and-so is a MOM and doing this FOR HER CHILDREN and to be a GREAT ROLE MODEL for her KIDS as that's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN A WOMAN'S LIFE, don't you know.

(Sorry, somewhat bitter person here who is way too sensitive to these things.)

ah! I see! I stand corrected.  I totally thought most Olympians were like the gymnasts age, like 14-16 or whatever they are.  Very interesting.

 

I totally agree with you about the flip side of the testifying thing, which I meant to post last week I think.  It's so annoying when the victim does testify and then they freak out and always blame OLIVIA (of course) for "YOU said I had to testify, YOU said that we would put him away!"  First of all - it's especially annoying because you know the writers totally just do this to make Olivia a victim and to make us all feel bad for her and defensive on her behalf.  Second, I don't really, because Olivia, you need to tell them that just because they testify and just because this goes to trial DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON IS GOING TO GET CONVICTED.  I feel like we do not hear that nearly enough.  We, as the audience, feel bad for Olivia because we know that it's not her fault if someone gets acquitted, but we should feel more badly about the fact that these victims are given unrealistic expectations.

And yeah, the babies are everything to a woman thing is getting really effing old.  I'm sick of both Rollins and Olivia having babies and being moms and now all of a sudden they are the authorities on everything Mom.  And Rollins being judgey about every victim who comes in with a child who's a lil irresponsible? Shame on her.  She's got the balls of a burglar to talk about other people behaving questionably.

 

EFF Kim Rollins.

 

Defense Attorney Varma is super cute.  Gorgeous actually I would say.

RE; Olympians with babies.
It's not uncommon, and actually used to be encouraged in Eastern Bloc countries because the hormonal changes of motherhood sometimes helps them come back stronger and faster. You will fin that most mothers in the top levels of sport come back better than they ever were. (we're talking one or two kids here, not five or six)

[TV Anonymous]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:04 PM, Laurie4H said:

So if you are an escort and go to a room and have sex it's still considered rape if they are rough? 

And how was this women considered "gorgeous" and "looks like a model" ?   

Beauty is on the eye of the beholder indeed, but the actress does have her spread on Maxim.

[Zoe]

On October 13, 2016 at 0:24 AM, JyDanzig said:

How did the victim's husband happen to show up at this random hotel bar at just the right moment to ruin the whole operation?

I am someone who actually likes Kim Rollins appearances, but I REALLY did not like that last moment.  We're supposed to think Amanda is a bad sister for not taking a greater interest in Kim's life?  That's a really gross insinuation, given what we've seen of this relationship so far, whether Kim has a diagnosis now or not.  Also, didn't her last appearance end with an innocent man being prosecuted for crimes that were Kim's fault, and also with her getting engaged to her defense attorney?  Those do not seem like threads you can just drop!

The bf and I immediately called out the BS at that. Yeah, she was a little colder than she should have been, but after all the mess Kim out her through, she owed Amanda some kind of explanation.

[Snookums]

Totally agree. Kim's been a walking nightmare her entire adult life and it was bad enough when the show at least seemed to be on Amanda's side, as the "fixer" in her fucked up family. But now she's A) supposed to feel bad for not asking about a medical condition that was NEVER EVEN HINTED AT, not even at Kim's parole hearing and B) just go "okay, squaresies!" about her sister stealing everything she owned, setting her up to gun someone down, nearly getting her fired and almost sending an innocent man to jail? 

[JyDanzig]

5 hours ago, Snookums said:

Totally agree. Kim's been a walking nightmare her entire adult life and it was bad enough when the show at least seemed to be on Amanda's side, as the "fixer" in her fucked up family. But now she's A) supposed to feel bad for not asking about a medical condition that was NEVER EVEN HINTED AT, not even at Kim's parole hearing and B) just go "okay, squaresies!" about her sister stealing everything she owned, setting her up to gun someone down, nearly getting her fired and almost sending an innocent man to jail? 

God, this is driving me nuts, but didn't she SEND that innocent man to jail?  I seem to remember a scene where someone was arguing that the man's criminal actions had only been undertaken after Kim drugged him, and Benson says "his defense attorney is free to argue that at trial", and I'm sitting there yelling at the TV: "BUT YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE!  YOU KNOW IT WASN'T HIS FAULT!"

I had actually totally forgotten how disturbed I was at the end of that last Kim episode -- it felt like the whole SVU crew was allowing this man they knew to be innocent to be prosecuted, and likely convicted, because that would be easier on Kim, and thus easier on Amanda.

Now I'm wondering if I just read it wrong.  Were we actually supposed to conclude that Kim's victim was somehow exonerated off-screen?  Was he supposed to seem more guilty than my interpretation?  Maybe it was just me...

[Risky Librarian]

I'm still compiling my thoughts, but I will say this: that final scene almost made me flip a table. Years and years of Kim Rollins acting like a complete sociopath, constantly drawing her sister into crazy mess to a job-on-the-line degree and knowing that she'll never turn her away because they're family, and even after getting paroled and preying on your sister's nature to get a place to stay, and you REALLY think you have to right to not tell her that you're bipolar and medicated, and that you can answer the question of "why didn't you tell me" with "YOU DIDN'T ASK, AMANDA?!" Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, lady. UGH.

(I straight up almost said, "WHAT?!" out loud at that, but I was watching on my phone in the staff lounge, and that probably wouldn't have gone over terribly well.)

Edited October 18, 2016 by Risky Librarian

[candall]

Re rape and prostitutes:  I just watched that doc about "Hooligan Sparrow" and the six little Chinese girls who were sexually assaulted by their elementary school principal.  He claims he gave them money, which is THE standard defense there to rape, even when the victims are children.

Now there's a legal system that fully subscribes to the idea that there can't be rape if there's been payment.  It's really good that we have all kinds of laws differentiating between what's consensual and what's not--kids, hookers, wives, girls on a date, drunk dorm mates all need that protection.

[love2lovebadtv]

On 10/12/2016 at 10:22 PM, chick binewski said:

I'm with @CleoCaesar on the convenient diagnosis issue. Rollins' screw up sister who makes excuses for everything wouldn't tell her cop sister she has an actual explanation for some of her behaviors? At least Liv's hair looked fabulous tonight. 

And is that the end of Tucker? I need to see him have a smoldering face-off with Elliot when Meloni returns for the series finale! Why can't we have nice things?

lol @ nice things