This Is Our Social & Cultural Issues Thread

[possibilities]

When I worked in retail, if I had spoken like that to a customer, I'm sure I would have been in trouble with my boss. That's just not tolerated. It's obnoxious and it's rude and it's harassment. And that was just some store, not a "therapeutic environment."

Now, if some people like it, that's their business. But it's not normal workplace behavior, it's not how you treat customers or clients, and anyone who behaves that way is looking to be fired. There is such a thing as creating a hostile environment. It's bad for business if nothing else.

Some people may enjoy hostility, but they should do it consensually and not at work with random strangers who happen to walk by. If you think NO doesn't mean NO, well... you'd better have a predetermined safe word and don't go around expecting the general public to play your game while you're on the clock.

I see from that interview quote that the producers of this show think it's cute and charming, and that makes me sick.

The excuse that "he thinks Kate likes it" is only viable because the show is fiction, written by people who say it's so. In the real world, it's boundary violation pure and simple and people who do it are playing a dangerous game at best, and creating an atmosphere where it's excusable to claim that no didn't mean no and thus whatever you did was OK. And that puts people in a position to have to escalate to get their boundaries respected. Should Kate have to avoid the horses because the stable guy is an obnoxious piece of shit? Should she have to wonder when he's going to show up somewhere else like the first time, and offer his unwanted commentary on her personal life? How many time should she have to say no before he stops? Should her thanking him for reverse psychologying her into trying the retreat again give him license to continue to say they're going to screw, after she told him they weren't and that she has a fiance? She didn't go to the retreat to swing. She went to deal with her psychological and medical issues. She said no, several times. He needs to shut the fuck up and not pressure her or act like he knows her better than she knows herself. She can go to him if she's interested. He told her once that he was interested, so now he needs to stop trying to wear her down and let her focus on her own stated priorities, which are the fat issue and her fiance.

[SlackerInc]

I agree that he is obnoxious, and that he is out of line to do this on the job.

I recommend the SNL bit I referenced earlier to illustrate "negging" and the whole psychological dynamic involved (it comes in at the end, but you should watch all of it for context).

[ClareWalks]

8 hours ago, possibilities said:

The excuse that "he thinks Kate likes it" is only viable because the show is fiction, written by people who say it's so. In the real world, it's boundary violation pure and simple and people who do it are playing a dangerous game at best, and creating an atmosphere where it's excusable to claim that no didn't mean no and thus whatever you did was OK.

That's exactly it. Thanks for articulating it way better than I was! :) The show is fiction and therefore the writers can say whatever they want and the characters can respond however the writers want, but that's not how real life works. I just think it's irresponsible to portray this dialogue and behavior as romantic.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, possibilities said:

The excuse that "he thinks Kate likes it" is only viable because the show is fiction, written by people who say it's so. In the real world, it's boundary violation pure and simple

While I do see what you guys are saying, I think it's something that the two people involved in the encounter have the final say on, not us the onlookers.  It's not out of the realm of possibility that a non-fiction woman would be turned on.  At least one in this thread admitted it.  Whether it violates boundaries is up to one person-- the woman in the conversation, so it's not that simple.  In my opinion.  It's an interesting one, though.  

[SlackerInc]

Yeah,  unless it is unheard of or vanishingly rare for a woman to respond positively to that approach, it's legitimate to portray it on screen.   Although if TV never shows the kind of disgusted reaction that so many here are displaying, it could be fairly argued that this cohort is underrepresented.   Underrepresentation is a tough thing to deal with, though, because you can't point to any given character and say it's their fault. It's a an issue in the aggregate.   Just like it is wrong, and was wrong, when TV showed almost exclusively straight white characters; but that doesn't mean there should never be straight white characters on TV either, so it's tough to isolate the problem. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I agree that he is obnoxious, and that he is out of line to do this on the job.

I recommend the SNL bit I referenced earlier to illustrate "negging" and the whole psychological dynamic involved (it comes in at the end, but you should watch all of it for context).

That is funny.  And very pertinent.  

I'm happy that writers are including this in comedy and dramas.  Seeing it on screen should help women spot it more easily in life and possibly adjust their own response to a more self-respecting reaction.  

[izabella]

All I know is, when someone tells you he is a dick, believe him.

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, izabella said:

All I know is, when someone tells you he is a dick, believe him.

And now I know what my next cross-stitch pattern will be!

[JudyObscure]

I agree that Horse Dick's behavior is inappropriate. I've never had a job with the public where I could have flirted with a customer like that and I've never been required to let them touch me or be overly aggressive.  I wonder though if the camp has clear rules about it, such as absolutely no fraternizing with the clients?  Some place do, some don't.  One thing I wouldn't do though is call it sexual harassment for the reasons stated -- no power over her, she's free to complain or leave, etc.

I think it's great that recently our society has been pointing this sort of thing out, looking at how it effects attitudes -- on campus in particular-- and discussing it.  This SNL sketch and the "Be Attractive," one someone else posted are great.  They help us see ourselves, both men and women. 

That said, what I don't like from all this talk about negging ,etc. is a growing expectation that the world owes grown women a soft, safe place where they never have to feel uncomfortable or never have to speak up and say, "Stuff it, Horse dick. You're not my type."  That's just a round trip back to the Victorian world that saw us as the weaker sex who couldn't  work with, much less lead men, because we were too sensitive and might cry all the time.

[Lady Calypso]

For me, I wouldn't say that Horse Dick is being abusive or anything. It's the fact that he's being rude, controlling, highly inappropriate, and it could turn into harassment. Kate has already told him no, and he still continued to be a dick about it. The fact that they're going to turn it into a love triangle is even more worrisome. No, he's not being romantic. No, I will not like Horse Dick. The show is going to try to manipulate me into liking him, which turns me off even more. I just hate the cliche where two people who hate each other end up falling madly in love. No, Horse Dick's just a plain old dick and I would have rather that they just stuck to it. It's not romantic for a guy to say "We'll see" when he finds out the girl has a fiance. No, it's not romantic for a guy to take a stranger's phone and hang up on whoever's on the other line. And it's certainly not romantic to continue to tell a girl that they'll be a thing without even knowing said girl's name. It's very controlling and it makes Horse Dick seem like a misogynist, like Kate's a prize that can be won.

[ShadowFacts]

3 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I agree that Horse Dick's behavior is inappropriate. I've never had a job with the public where I could have flirted with a customer like that and I've never been required to let them touch me or be overly aggressive.  I wonder though if the camp has clear rules about it, such as absolutely no fraternizing with the clients?  Some place do, some don't.  One thing I wouldn't do though is call it sexual harassment for the reasons stated -- no power over her, she's free to complain or leave, etc.

I think it's great that recently our society has been pointing this sort of thing out, looking at how it effects attitudes -- on campus in particular-- and discussing it.  This SNL sketch and the "Be Attractive," one someone else posted are great.  They help us see ourselves, both men and women. 

That said, what I don't like from all this talk about negging ,etc. is a growing expectation that the world owes grown women a soft, safe place where they never have to feel uncomfortable or never have to speak up and say, "Stuff it, Horse dick. You're not my type."  That's just a round trip back to the Victorian world that saw us as the weaker sex who couldn't  work with, much less lead men, because we were too sensitive and might cry all the time.

I get what you're saying.  I don't think Kate is much like the weaker woman you describe, and you are probably not intending to describe her.  But in this scenario they've set up, she was referred to the camp by a physician for help before she goes through with surgery, or decides not to.  I think the state of New York must regulate such places, and there may be rules around sexual contact such as Horse Dick is soliciting.  I'm seeing it as a therapeutic place, and even if he is a stable guy he might be bound by the same ethics that other people who work there are.  I think protections for vulnerable people like Kate is right now  are good and necessary. 

[OtterMommy]

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

That said, what I don't like from all this talk about negging ,etc. is a growing expectation that the world owes grown women a soft, safe place where they never have to feel uncomfortable or never have to speak up and say, "Stuff it, Horse dick. You're not my type."  That's just a round trip back to the Victorian world that saw us as the weaker sex who couldn't  work with, much less lead men, because we were too sensitive and might cry all the time.

I don't disagree with you in general, but I do disagree in this particular instance.  Kate is at a Therapeutic camp, something that is under the auspices of something, something that answers to medical entities and insurances companies.  The people who are attending this camp have (among other things) some psychological issues to work through.  Given that, there SHOULD be rules and regulations regarding things like this.  Kate, or anyone there, should NOT have to say "Stuff it, Horse Dick..." while there.

Now, as for the outside world...I agree with you.

[luna1122]

I don't disagree in general either...yes, women should be able to say 'fuck off, you asshole' and I hope most do, and we aren't delicate flowers who can't deal with big bad self confidence destroying dicks.  However, it's still a good thing to call the assholes out on it, and identify the behavior, I think.

[possibilities]

I also think that once you say "Fuck off, Asshole!" you should not have to repeat yourself. At what point it becomes criminal vs just really shitty behavior, there can be a debate. But I don't think anyone so far has been saying that Horse Guy should be arrested, sent to trial immediately, and condemned to prison for the next 20 years. I just think people have been saying that his behavior crosses a line and we don't like it, and that he should stop.

If he doesn't, I would expect most who object to his actions would want some kind of consequences until he does. What those penalties should be I think there hasn't really been much said. Reprimand by his employer? Forced to attend a training on appropriate workplace behavior? Moved to a job where he does not encounter clients of the camp? Firing? I haven't seen anyone even suggest the possibility of prison.

Edited February 11, 2017 by possibilities

[SlackerInc]

13 hours ago, possibilities said:

I also think that once you say "Fuck off, Asshole!" you should not have to repeat yourself. At what point it becomes criminal vs just really shitty behavior, there can be a debate. But I don't think anyone so far has been saying that Horse Guy should be arrested, sent to trial immediately, and condemned to prison for the next 20 years. I just think people have been saying that his behavior crosses a line and we don't like it, and that he should stop.

If he doesn't, I would expect most who object to his actions would want some kind of consequences until he does. What those penalties should be I think there hasn't really been much said. Reprimand by his employer? Forced to attend a training on appropriate workplace behavior? Moved to a job where he does not encounter clients of the camp? Firing? I haven't seen anyone even suggest the possibility of prison.

Not in this thread, but in another thread it was suggested that if he is diabolically preying upon the psychological vulnerabilities of women who are trying to lose weight, and manipulating them into sleeping with him, then they aren't truly consenting and it crosses a line to sexual assault.

[Lady Calypso]

5 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

Not in this thread, but in another thread it was suggested that if he is diabolically preying upon the psychological vulnerabilities of women who are trying to lose weight, and manipulating them into sleeping with him, then they aren't truly consenting and it crosses a line to sexual assault.

I think there's a lot of grey area when it comes to harassment, in my opinion. As I stated in the episode thread, consent has recently been seen more prominently as a tricky thing. Now, I am not the one who agreed with the sexual assault route, but I do think it could be constituted as some form of sexual harassment and it certainly makes Horse Dick look pretty bad in terms of morality. The fact that he deems it alright to be sleeping with not just clients, but people who truly believe that they are going through one of the toughest emotional periods of their lives is pretty bad to me. Just because he thinks the camp is stupid and that it won't ever work, it doesn't mean that these women don't. His conversation with Toby really shined a light on who Horse Dick could really be as a person. He's clearly been working at the camp long enough to know that it won't work and that it's not a meaningful effort in the long run (although maybe he doesn't realize that it could work on some people). So, it seems like he might justify his actions with sleeping with these women as an attempt to fulfill his own sexual needs and desires, but in a completely selfish way. 

Maybe he has issues with getting in bed with other women who don't have body issues, so he thinks that these women are the only ones who will willingly sleep with him. I don't really know because we know nothing about his history. But I just feel incredibly uncomfortable when he told Toby that there are many women here who can be easy to sleep with, especially when intoxicated. That doesn't make Horse Dick look good at all. It's not tongue in cheek because he seems absolutely serious about it. I don't think he's joking about it because it's a pretty odd thing to joke about sleeping with women who are going through this camp and finding it easier to sleep with them while they're drunk. It's just not a funny thing to joke about, you know? So I don't know if it's quite sexual assault, but I do believe it's borderline sexual harassment. 

In my opinion, he does need to be fired, point blank. He's using his own sexual desires, it seems, to get with women who he may feel are the only ones who would sleep with him. Of course, this is just an initial assessment in his two episodes so it may be unfair to say this, but he should not be working at the camp if he's not only going to be rude to the women, but if he's also going to take advantage of them for his own sexual desires. He's not a good guy, period. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

people who truly believe that they are going through one of the toughest emotional periods of their lives

I guess this is the part I don't get.  Most adults are actively trying to lose weight and exercise more, throughout our whole lives.  I don't think we should be deemed vulnerable?  

I don't think the women are drunk there, either.  The writers made a point of saying they get 5 oz. of wine.  That's a small glass.  

[Lady Calypso]

Just now, Winston9-DT3 said:

I guess this is the part I don't get.  Most adults are actively trying to lose weight and exercise more, throughout our whole lives.  I don't think we should be deemed vulnerable? 

I don't think the women are drunk there, either.  The writers made a point of saying they get 5 oz. of wine.  That's a small glass.  

I guess so? The way I see it is that this fat camp, as Kate puts it, is a different way of trying to lose the weight. From the little we've seen, the instructors find other ways to get the clients to lose the weight, which seem to involve opening up emotionally and psychologically. It's less about the exercise and more about searching deep down within themselves to find the root of the problem. So, in that way, it does seem to include a degree of vulnerability. So, in terms of the camp environment specifically, it does seem like the women are more vulnerable than they would be in their normal lives. But, of course, this is all up to interpretation and that's just how I see it.

As for the second part, I didn't realize that it was only 5 oz of wine. I don't really drink alcohol enough to know this. I guess it would lower the inhibitions a bit, which is still just....a weird thing to say, even as a joke. It's not really right if we think about the women he's sleeping with. How would they feel if they heard him make the comments?

 It says a lot more about Duke than it should. It seems like he doesn't really accept himself and he could have low self esteem, which does go against everything that he's said to Kate thus far about feeling comfortable. Either way, until we get confirmation that he has low self esteem that he masks with confidence and dick comments, then I think I just can't like him. 

[ShadowFacts]

I realize I have been overthinking the whole thing.  The guy is written pretty unambiguously as an asshole extraordinaire.  Haven't seen a redeeming quality yet.  He badgers a client for sex.  He brags about what he does and encourages another client on how to do it when the new client is barely out of the parking lot.  This jabroni is henceforth kicked out of my mental real estate. 

[Guest]

Yeah, I get it.  I'm not saying anyone's wrong.  It's just one of the more interesting things to discuss on a Sunday morning.  Picture a 1-cup measuring glass.  That's 8 oz.  So the wine is just over half a cup.  It's considered a 'serving' but it's really not enough to do much in the way of even lowering inhibitions but MMV.  It wouldn't even preclude driving for all but the smallest and lightest of us, I don't think.  I'm maybe 1/3 Kate's weight and I'd have to drink probably in the neighborhood of 10x that much wine before I might be considered too impaired to consent.  

I kind of feel like Duke is more a guy playing the douchebro lothario bad boy around Toby than any actual predator.  Around Kate, too, for the most part.  Interesting how differently people take him, for sure!  

[Tiger]

I think it's condescending to state or imply that people who are medically and/or perceived to be overweight are somehow weaker and/or more vulnerable than other people.  

[Lady Calypso]

30 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I think it's condescending to state or imply that people who are medically and/or perceived to be overweight are somehow weaker and/or more vulnerable than other people. 

Oh, that's not what I'm trying to say at all! I was hoping that my point was coming across better! What I mean is that the situation that these individuals are in can be seen as being in a more vulnerable place. These women, in particular, are clients, going to a place to hopefully get help to lose the weight that they personally want to lose. This camp seems to be designed to do so in a way that is less about the exercise aspect and more about digging into the emotional aspects. It would be the exact same case if the camp was for mental health or anything that is about the treatment or goal of working toward something personal to make lives better or happier, depending on which one they are going for. I think I specified that these women are not in this vulnerable place in their everyday lives. It's just in this situation, they are; they're there to be in a safe space where they can get the help that they are searching for, no matter if it is successful or not. Both women and men are there for a purpose. For me, Duke is not respecting it and is invading their safe space. He shouldn't be hitting on clients period. He shouldn't be sleeping with them, and he shouldn't be telling the other male clients that they can sleep with the other women clients. That's the entire point; it's about Duke and his invasion on the women of the camp. It's really not about overweightness at all for me. My grandmother is one of the toughest people I know and she's been overweight by a lot ever since I can remember (actually, she was of average side when she was younger). 

I like to think of this camp as a sort of therapy session. You wouldn't want your psychiatrist to take advantage of you during a therapy session. You wouldn't want anyone associated with that psychiatrist to take advantage of you during your session either. 

I just don't want Duke to cross any lines, but I also don't want Kate to give in to whatever charm he has either. She should be saying no to his advantages, but he should be listening and not doing what he's been doing. Also, don't give advice to random strangers about banging the women at the camp. That's so, so wrong. He also seems to imply that because the women are vulnerable, then that's ok to sleep with them. Doesn't he say something about the women at the camp being friskier to Toby? 

[Guest]

Yeah, if he was just another camper it'd be different.  Him being a worker makes it iffy-er.  

He told Toby they're frisky after losing weight.  Which I don't think is that offensive or unlikely.  It implies to me they're interested, at least.  

[ShadowFacts]

I'm done with the self-described dick, but as for Kate I will say:  she is vulnerable.  She is at the camp to resolve her indecision about major surgery.  And we just saw her primally scream when apparently thinking about the death of her father who loved her unconditionally.  Not that there is anything perjorative about saying someone is vulnerable, it's not a personal failing, it's just a state that can certainly come and go. 

[SlackerInc]

12 hours ago, Lady Calypso said:

His conversation with Toby really shined a light on who Horse Dick could really be as a person. He's clearly been working at the camp long enough to know that it won't work and that it's not a meaningful effort in the long run (although maybe he doesn't realize that it could work on some people). So, it seems like he might justify his actions with sleeping with these women as an attempt to fulfill his own sexual needs and desires, but in a completely selfish way. 

Maybe he has issues with getting in bed with other women who don't have body issues, so he thinks that these women are the only ones who will willingly sleep with him. I don't really know because we know nothing about his history. But I just feel incredibly uncomfortable when he told Toby that there are many women here who can be easy to sleep with, especially when intoxicated. That doesn't make Horse Dick look good at all. It's not tongue in cheek because he seems absolutely serious about it. I don't think he's joking about it because it's a pretty odd thing to joke about sleeping with women who are going through this camp and finding it easier to sleep with them while they're drunk. It's just not a funny thing to joke about, you know?

In the moment, watching, what he said to Toby made him come across as a major creep (although, again, not an actual sexual predator in a criminal sense).  But when I went back and transcribed it for the episode thread, I actually found myself seeing it as more arguable as to whether it's even morally wrong.  Here were his exact words:

"Bro, chin up: as long as you don't need a crane to get up off the sofa, you'll clean up around here.  This camp is crawlin' with women who just dropped a few stones and are feelin' frisky.  Especially on Thursdays.  That's when everybody gets their five ounces of white wine."

Couldn't this be translated (if we're going to be generous to Duke) as: "Bro, cheer up, and don't bail out: this place is great!  The women here lose weight and get fit, which really boosts their self-esteem and gets them into a mood to have fun and go for a fling, rather than what they do in their daily lives, which is mope around, assume no guy is interested in them, and go on a vicious downward cycle of feeling self loathing, 'eating their feelings', which causes them to feel even worse about themselves, which leads them to binge even more, and so on.  Here, it's more of a virtuous upward cycle.  On Thursday, it's especially fun, 'cause everyone gets to have a little glass of wine to take the edge off and get the party atmosphere amped up even more.  Stick around and check it out!"

I know the way he couched what he said was quite different from that presentation.  But is there anything in what he said that actually conflicts with this version?  How do we know that a fling with Duke (or Toby, as Duke is suggesting--note that he's not selfish) isn't a positive experience for the campers, in a "Stella Got Her Groove Back" type way?

11 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

It wouldn't even preclude driving for all but the smallest and lightest of us, I don't think.  I'm maybe 1/3 Kate's weight and I'd have to drink probably in the neighborhood of 10x that much wine before I might be considered too impaired to consent.  

I just realized that I quoted this because I read too quickly the first time and misunderstood you.  (And if there's a way to delete just a single quote, I haven't learned it.)  Because the first sentence mentioned driving, I thought the last word in the second sentence was also "drive".  I was going to caution you that if you were planning on driving after eight or nine five-ounce glasses of wine (within a short period of time), think again!  LOL

9 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I'm done with the self-described dick, but as for Kate I will say:  she is vulnerable.  She is at the camp to resolve her indecision about major surgery.  And we just saw her primally scream when apparently thinking about the death of her father who loved her unconditionally.  Not that there is anything perjorative about saying someone is vulnerable, it's not a personal failing, it's just a state that can certainly come and go. 

She's vulnerable in the non-legal descriptive sense.  But there's a legal definition of "vulnerable adult" which she does not come even close to meeting.

But even in the non-legal sense, when talking simply about morality short of committing a crime, I think it's an open question.  I think one could argue that for obese women who haven't gotten attention from a man in a long time, a "this one time at fat camp..." fling with Duke might actually not be a net negative for them emotionally/psychologically.

[talktoomuch]

I really love this thoughtful debate on the bounds of sexual harrrasment. Though I'm in the camp of I Don't Think That What Duke's Doing Is Sexual Harrrasment, I appreciate the passionate and informative dialogue. 

Still I don't believe the writers are making this a romance. I truly believe Duke is a plot device to have see the issues in her relationship with Toby and recognize that she doesn't have to setttle because no one has ever been attracted to her before. Seeing that there are other men who will find her sexy will allow Kate to choose herself.

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, talktoomuch said:

Still I don't believe the writers are making this a romance. I truly believe Duke is a plot device to have see the issues in her relationship with Toby and recognize that she doesn't have to setttle because no one has ever been attracted to her before. Seeing that there are other men who will find her sexy will allow Kate to choose herself.

I hope this is just a plot device as well.  However, as smart as your idea is (and it would be nice if the show took that route), part of me thinks the "Duke Device" is just a trick to make Toby look not so bad.  If so, that's unfortunate.  The way to make Toby seem more human is to humanize him (like the one scene in the most recent episode where he admitted that he was scared), not to just put in someone worse for comparison.

[luna1122]

23 hours ago, Lady Calypso said:

I was hoping that my point was coming across better! What I mean is that the situation that these individuals are in can be seen as being in a more vulnerable place.

When I was going thru a divorce, I was suddenly catnip for type of guys I called the 'shark boys'. I was vulnerable, and they smelled the blood in the water and came sailing. I'm sure virtually any woman who's been thru a divorce (and men, too, there are, I'm sure, also shark girls) has encountered these predatory guys. They seem to feed off the vulnerability; it either gives them confidence that a woman in a good place doesn't give them, or they actively LIKE the sadness and depression and, so, in many cases, the lowered self esteem and diminished decision making skills that such a situation often renders. A lot of women fall for these guys' line of crap, since they ARE at their most vulnerable. It's not sexual assault, but it's still deeply creepy behavior, partly because it's so...premeditated.

Duke is that guy, but for the women with lowered self esteem at this camp.

Since he is an employee, I'd say it borders on harassment. Not that these women can't just tell him to fuck off, creep. They are not, by definition, victims, not until he DOESN'T fuck off when they say so, and they feel harassed or threatened.

[Nijntje]

On 2017-01-22 at 11:01 PM, possibilities said:

This surprised me. It says that the USA exports babies for adoption abroad, and that there is not the same trouble placing AA kids outside the country as there is with placing them within our borders. Article is from 2004:
Born in America, adopted abroad: African-American babies are going to parents overseas even as US couples adopt children from other countries

I was just catching up on this thread now and wanted to include this old article on the adoption of black American children in Canada. I know the family involved.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050214081012/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/60minutes/main673597.shtml

[OtterMommy]

59 minutes ago, luna1122 said:

When I was going thru a divorce, I was suddenly catnip for type of guys I called the 'shark boys'. I was vulnerable, and they smelled the blood in the water and came sailing. I'm sure virtually any woman who's been thru a divorce (and men, too, there are, I'm sure, also shark girls) has encountered these predatory guys. They seem to feed off the vulnerability; it either gives them confidence that a woman in a good place doesn't give them, or they actively LIKE the sadness and depression and, so, in many cases, the lowered self esteem and diminished decision making skills that such a situation often renders. A lot of women fall for these guys' line of crap, since they ARE at their most vulnerable. It's not sexual assault, but it's still deeply creepy behavior, partly because it's so...premeditated.

 

Oh, I hear you on this one.  And I agree that in the case of random men it isn't assault.  My point with Duke, which makes me believe this would be assault in his case IF it becomes physical, is that he is an employee at a place where people are vulnerable...and he knows that.  I see a difference between "blood in the water" and someone who chooses to be at a place where women who are more vulnerable than usual come to a place where, during the treatment, they are even MORE vulnerable.   Duke knows how this works...think back to his conversation with Toby.  

As far as we know, Duke is not a medical professional, although I'm not clear if he holds some sort of therapeutic position.  I mean, does he just take care of the horses or does he take clients/patients out on horse rides as part of their experience at the camp?  No matter what the case, I find this more in the vein of a therapist or psychologist having sex with a patient (which, by the way, IS sexual assault and you can easily find countless cases of it with a quick google search) than just a dick trying to score an easy lay.  No matter what Duke's position at the camp is, he is bound by some basic professional standards--as well as any policies the camp has in place (which it most likely does).

[chocolatine]

21 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

As far as we know, Duke is not a medical professional, although I'm not clear if he holds some sort of therapeutic position.  I mean, does he just take care of the horses or does he take clients/patients out on horse rides as part of their experience at the camp?  No matter what the case, I find this more in the vein of a therapist or psychologist having sex with a patient (which, by the way, IS sexual assault and you can easily find countless cases of it with a quick google search) than just a dick trying to score an easy lay.  No matter what Duke's position at the camp is, he is bound by some basic professional standards--as well as any policies the camp has in place (which it most likely does).

I think he's just a hired hand. He was shown cleaning exercise equipment. He also mentioned not having a job that his parents were proud of, or something to that effect. Perhaps when he was first hired the camp didn't see the need to give him a full "sensitivity" training, since he wasn't supposed to actually interact with the campers. But the way he's openly being a dick to everyone and overstepping boundaries, word should have reached the camp's management/HR department by now.

[SlackerInc]

On 2/13/2017 at 0:49 PM, chocolatine said:

I think he's just a hired hand. He was shown cleaning exercise equipment. He also mentioned not having a job that his parents were proud of, or something to that effect. Perhaps when he was first hired the camp didn't see the need to give him a full "sensitivity" training, since he wasn't supposed to actually interact with the campers. But the way he's openly being a dick to everyone and overstepping boundaries, word should have reached the camp's management/HR department by now.

Unless, as I suspect, his parents own the camp.

@Clanstarling @luna1122

I think people who don't want to be faithful (even the term bothers me) are in a similar position as gay people were in the 1950s.  There is such a strong social pressure to at least outwardly act straight/monogamous, that acting according to our true desires has to be done furtively, behind closed doors, with someone else who also keeps it on the DL.  If it were socially acceptable to marry someone, have kids with them, but also get some on the side, then we could talk about partners entering into relationships with an honest discussion of their values and expectations.

I don't talk about my beliefs on this IRL.  If I did, my father-in-law would be ready to kill me, my neighbors here in the rural heartland would shun me, it would impact my children at school, and maybe even my wife's livelihood.

[luna1122]

23 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

@Clanstarling @luna1122

I think people who don't want to be faithful (even the term bothers me) are in a similar position as gay people were in the 1950s.  There is such a strong social pressure to at least outwardly act straight/monogamous, that acting according to our true desires has to be done furtively, behind closed doors, with someone else who also keeps it on the DL.  If it were socially acceptable to marry someone, have kids with them, but also get some on the side, then we could talk about partners entering into relationships with an honest discussion of their values and expectations.

I don't talk about my beliefs on this IRL.  If I did, my father-in-law would be ready to kill me, my neighbors here in the rural heartland would shun me, it would impact my children at school, and maybe even my wife's livelihood.

No judgement from me and I agree that many mutually consensually non monogamous folks feel they can't be honest about it publicly. It's nobody's business what you do in your bedroom or somebody else's, but OTOH you shouldn't have to hide it. And I will confess that tho I am very open minded, my first thought--and I'm not proud of it--was to feel sorry for your spouse, as if she lacks autonomy or sound judgement or whatever. I'm going to assume you're both on the same page and have fairly clear rules on how this works so nobody gets hurt and so I say 'go you' 

I was always perfectly happy dating a lot of guys and was honest about it, but I am not apparently built for non monogamy when I'm in love. I can't personally grasp how commitment and non monogamy co exist, but that's me. I hate feelings of jealousy and always wonder how the polyamorous and the non monogamous either don't get jealous or insecure or how they handle it and f they do. 

As long as all parties involved are honest and perfectly fine with the situations, I think nobody has any room to judge. It's only something I DO judge if fidelity or monogamy or whatever is the preferred word is agreed upon and someone betrays that. Hence why I think Kate sleeping with duke after accepting toby's proposal would be a pretty shitty move. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by luna1122

[ShadowFacts]

It's not one-size-fits-all, as in many things.  Not everybody can be monogamous, and not everybody who is, is secretly wanting to bust free of the constraints.  The trouble arises when a person tries to be something they're not. 

[SlackerInc]

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

I can't personally grasp how commitment and non monogamy co exist, but that's me. I hate feelings of jealousy and always wonder how the polyamorous and the non monogamous either don't get jealous or insecure or how they handle it and f they do. 

As long as all parties involved are honest and perfectly fine with the situations, I think nobody has any room to judge. It's only something I DO judge if fidelity or monogamy or whatever is the preferred word is agreed upon and someone betrays that. Hence why I think Kate sleeping with duke after accepting toby's proposal would be a pretty shitty move. 

I don't understand how it works for people who are open about it with their partners.  My wife and I agreed, before we got married, that we were going to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and never speak of it again.  To have it waved in my face would definitely make me feel uncomfortable, jealous, etc.

But I don't even expect people to come to a mutual understanding like we did.  Not as long as the culture is so tilted toward condemning something that I believe most (not all) people at least want to do, whether they actually do or not.  As long as there is such harsh condemnation of adultery out there in the zeitgeist, I don't blame someone at all if they get married, go along with the vows of eternal fidelity, then go on a business trip and have a fling and go back home and never breathe a word of it to their spouse.  Nor would I judge Kate poorly for getting a little extra on the side in camp, then going back and marrying Toby and never telling him as long as they live.  (The trope of nagging guilt leading to a reveal, I can't stand.)

I obviously enjoy talking about TV (and movies), and I've found it interesting in cases when an affair is portrayed without either portraying the "cheaters" as evil (or racked with guilt), or making the "cheated upon" spouse a monster.  Showtime's The Affair was a good example on TV until it got too soapy; in movies, I really like a hidden gem of an indie film called 28 Hotel Rooms.  In both cases, the discussions here or on IMDb have included many histrionic voices of people absolutely livid that "cheaters" would be portrayed sympathetically, or never getting some kind of comeuppance.  People seem to tolerate Walter White's or Tony Soprano's violent crimes more easily.

And then every time a famous politician gets caught in flagrante delicto, there's a chorus of voices wondering why so many politicians do this, whether it is something about power, blah blah blah...ignoring (or naively being unaware of) the fact that certainly the vast majority of men (and a lot of women) would do this if they had the opportunity, and politicians have both more opportunities and more chance of getting caught.

Edited February 15, 2017 by SlackerInc

[luna1122]

26 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

I don't understand how it works for people who are open about it with their partners.  My wife and I agreed, before we got married, that we were going to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and never speak of it again.  To have it waved in my face would definitely make me feel uncomfortable, jealous, etc.

.

Hmm. That's a little different than what I imagined your arrangement was, but it's not my business. I hope your wife really meant it, and I hope you're both careful and safe in your extracurricular activities. You're right, of course, that lots of folks who have professed fidelity do cheat. and plenty who don't wish they could, at least sometimes. I guess I always felt that if I wanted to keep screwing around, I wouldn't be in a committed relationship, but I also guess it works for some people. I'm curious what you'd do if your wife DID ask, or DID tell, and how that might change things, or if it would.

I've been cheated on, and it was shocking and painful and it ended my marriage, so that surely colors my feelings on the whole subject. Lots of people cheat, and we're all human and open to temptation. But it's not a victimless act. There's a lot of pain involved, generally. Maybe those of us who find it so devastating and wrong are unevolved or something, but I don't really think so. But if it can work within a relationship without causing pain or guilt, go for it, I guess.

[SlackerInc]

I just think most people who don't do it lack the opportunity.  Given a very attractive opportunity in a faraway city with little chance of ever getting caught, I think very few people would resist.

If my wife asked, or told, that would not be cool at all.

As for whether my wife really meant it, she was quite against it when I first raised the idea.  But we had decided to get married but had not yet told anyone.  I told her this is my deal, and if it's a dealbreaker that is your call.

She was 24, a smart and driven grad student, Phi Beta Kappa, not dependent on me financially; and had plenty of time to find some other guy who would at least claim he would be faithful...but she chose to marry me.  [shrug]. I'm sure it was a tough compromise on her part, but that's how we have to navigate through life, deciding what is non-negotiable.

[Dejana]

Jack's sex talk with Kevin seemed kind of...low-key? Maybe catching Kevin sneaking a girl into/out of the basement led his parents to suspect, though Rebecca seemed shocked by the revelation (but that sort of news is often a real jolt to parents, even with forewarning). By the 1990s,  I wouldn't think of parents expecting abstinence from their teenagers as the default mode anymore (though some certainly still did, and do even now), but "condoms and respect" struck me as overly nonchalant, even for a "cool parent" of the era. Tim "The Toolman" Taylor was a doofus manchild but even he stepped it up for a genuine conversation after Brad got making out with a girl in his room:

Maybe the writers didn't bother with a real talk since it was destined to be interrupted?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Dejana

[SlackerInc]

On 2/13/2017 at 6:35 PM, SlackerInc said:

On 2/13/2017 at 0:49 PM, chocolatine said:

But the way he's openly being a dick to everyone and overstepping boundaries, word should have reached the camp's management/HR department by now.

Unless, as I suspect, his parents own the camp.

Ding ding ding!  :)

ETA: @Dejana, my mom put condoms in my Xmas stocking, and sponges in my sister's, when we were 14 and 12, respectively.  This was actually a slightly earlier year than the scene in the show.  I was fairly embarrassed, and my sister was mortified.  (We were at a family cabin where my aunt and uncle and grandparents were also present.)  I was still a virgin, and my sister says she was (and I believe her).  Liberal parents gonna be liberal...

Edited February 16, 2017 by SlackerInc

[PRgal]

16 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

Ding ding ding!  :)

ETA: @Dejana, my mom put condoms in my Xmas stocking, and sponges in my sister's, when we were 14 and 12, respectively.  This was actually a slightly earlier year than the scene in the show.  I was fairly embarrassed, and my sister was mortified.  (We were at a family cabin where my aunt and uncle and grandparents were also present.)  I was still a virgin, and my sister says she was (and I believe her).  Liberal parents gonna be liberal...

OMG!!!  I'd be mortified too.  Other than the reproduction and period talks, my mom never said ANYTHING to me.  Thank goodness for Seventeen and YM (I was never a Sassy kind of girl)!  And health classes at school (you know, the condom on a banana thing).  #immigrantparents

[topanga]

18 minutes ago, PRgal said:

OMG!!!  I'd be mortified too.  Other than the reproduction and period talks, my mom never said ANYTHING to me.  Thank goodness for Seventeen and YM (I was never a Sassy kind of girl)!  And health classes at school (you know, the condom on a banana thing).  #immigrantparents

My mother never even had the reproduction talk with me. Thank goodness for Afterschool specials--and older sisters. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, topanga said:

My mother never even had the reproduction talk with me. Thank goodness for Afterschool specials--and older sisters. 

Same here.  Though I was probably 16 when she laughingly made me a plastic canvas cross stitch that said, "If God had meant women to give blow jobs, she wouldn't have given them teeth."  My friends loved it.  

[Kohola3]

15 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

"If God had meant women to give blow jobs, she wouldn't have given them teeth."

Oh, geez, I just spewed Coke all over my laptop.

[Tiger]

4 hours ago, topanga said:

My mother never even had the reproduction talk with me. Thank goodness for Afterschool specials--and older sisters. 

And older brothers.  My parents gave him "the talk" but then expected him to give it to me and then for me to give it to my younger brother; we're all four years apart.  

[Mrs. DuRona]

I like to think that the sex talk would have delved into deeper territory had Randall not had his meltdown.  Also, it's one thing to do the "you might be thinking about having sex, so here's the low-down and things to consider" talk.  Another to have the "OK, you're already having sex, are you doing this?  No?  Do this." talk, haha.  Most parents are more prepared for the first one.  

[Tiger]

Have we talked about how expensive it is to eat unhealthy?  

Because it's always portrayed on tv and even in the media that eating as Kate is allegedly eating now (kale, etc) is more expensive than the alternative and buying doughnuts at a gas station, when the reality is that unhealthy foods, particularly those fast food "value" meals are budget killers.

I bring this up because this morning at the grocery store a Kate & Toby sized couple picked a fight with me out of the clear blue sky about what was in my grocery cart versus theirs, with their argument being that it expensive to eat like I do and look like I do.  

I quickly dispelled that myth when we went to the cashier and their grocery bill for the two of them for the week was almost 3X that for me and my boyfriend.  And then we got into all the fastfood and gas station snacks they get during the week, and I think they saw they were spending well over 3X what I am per week for crap versus my healthy food.

[SlackerInc]

I agree that eating healthy is cheap if you cook from scratch, which I do.  But most people don't, or they get the ingredients shipped from an expensive service like Blue Apron.

[mansonlamps]

On 2/18/2017 at 7:45 AM, Tiger said:

Have we talked about how expensive it is to eat unhealthy?  

Because it's always portrayed on tv and even in the media that eating as Kate is allegedly eating now (kale, etc) is more expensive than the alternative and buying doughnuts at a gas station, when the reality is that unhealthy foods, particularly those fast food "value" meals are budget killers.

I bring this up because this morning at the grocery store a Kate & Toby sized couple picked a fight with me out of the clear blue sky about what was in my grocery cart versus theirs, with their argument being that it expensive to eat like I do and look like I do.  

I quickly dispelled that myth when we went to the cashier and their grocery bill for the two of them for the week was almost 3X that for me and my boyfriend.  And then we got into all the fastfood and gas station snacks they get during the week, and I think they saw they were spending well over 3X what I am per week for crap versus my healthy food.

Well that's weird. Did you know this couple?  I can't imagine openly judging a person's shopping cart.

[PRgal]

44 minutes ago, mansonlamps said:

Well that's weird. Did you know this couple?  I can't imagine openly judging a person's shopping cart.

Yeah.  I've done invisible eye rolls at some people's cart items, but I'll never openly say anything TO others.  The couple sounds sad.

[Guest]

Much less comparing receipts.  

I also don't understand how people can say "my grocery bill for the week is X".  I'm a finance professional and I have no idea and wouldn't know how to start.  A lot of my groceries are from Costco and on my bill there is also auto parts, clothes, contacts, dog food, toiletries, weed spray, pool chlorine, sheets, books, etc., etc.  And none of my food lasts exactly a week, or even close.  To tally it up we'd have to note our portions and total product cost per item and then divide it out and sum up all those tiny amounts/costs for each ingredient of each thing I prepare.  

I guess if you shop at one food store that sells exclusively food you can just average out your charges over like a year, though.  Or if you don't cook, you just buy X prepared meals a week.  Then it's easier.