S07.E04: Pantygate

[breezy424]

Oh gosh.  First of all I can't sleep.  Happy New Years to every one.  Why is it even being discussed that 'someone' should have told Erika that she was 'exposing' herself?  ERIKA knew there was a problem.  According to Erika's blog last week:  The facts are these: My knees were closed together from the moment I sat down, and my legs were covered with either my purse or a black napkin.  Well, of course, this isn't true as we've seen but why is it PK or Kyle's responsibility to signal, or text, or whatever, to let her know that she's flashing?  

Before that comment in her blog, Erika states:  I’m not really sure what motivated LVP to stick her hand up my dress. I found it invasive, and I did not appreciate it.  OK.  I agree it was invasive but keep in mind it was because you were 'displaying' something. 

Look.  The fact is that Erika chose to wear something that didn't work sitting down.  She knew that.  It's her responsibility.  No one else.  The blame is solely on Erika.

As for dress appropriateness, dress codes are made for a reason.  It's not just about 'exciting' men.  We focus on women more because women and young women are the ones who tend to push boundaries.  Men don't push those boundaries like women do.  Imagine if a male student came to school wearing tight leggings.  Or, how about males who chose to wear jeans that are so low their underwear is totally  exposed?   Unfortunately, women are still under the belief that their 'worth' has something to do with how attractive and sexy they are.   I get it on a certain level and circumstance.  However, there's a time and a place.  School and professional situations are not the place.  It hurts women.  I come from the generation of women who worked sooo hard to be taken seriously in the work place and in the world.  Many young women today don't get that.  They take it for granted.  Of course, we're not where we should be but we've made so much progress.  So, if you choose to wear revealing clothing in the professional world, you're taking us back.  You may not understand this because you don't know what it was like.  And I'm no prude. 

In the workplace, you may not like it but, when women wear certain clothing it's about playing being sexually attractive.   I'm reminded about Fox's policy about how women are 'supposed' to look... low cut dresses and legs on display.  Men just don't do that.  There's a message here to all woman.  If you want to be taken seriously, it's about your mind, not how sexually attractive you are.  Don't play that game to get ahead.  It's a disservice to all women.  We've come too far.  Unfortunately, here in the USA, it looks like we're going to be taking a step back.     

[MatildaMoody]

The convention of asking how a housewife knows another is just that, a convention. It isn't something that started with LisaV and it definitely won't end with her. So why should Lisa get called out as shady for something that is a standard across the franchise when we see it happen so often that  actually call it a convention? 

I know Lisa is shady, it's what I love about her, because so few housewives do it well. But let's be real, calling her out over a standard housewife question and answer does a real disservice to her actual pot stirring talent. 

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, MatildaMoody said:

The convention of asking how a housewife knows another is just that, a convention. It isn't something that started with LisaV and it definitely won't end with her. So why should Lisa get called out as shady for something that is a standard across the franchise when we see it happen so often that  actually call it a convention? 

 

It's also a standard question to ask anytime that you meet a friend of a friend.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 

Why is it even being discussed that 'someone' should have told Erika that she was 'exposing' herself?

Look.  The fact is that Erika chose to wear something that didn't work sitting down.  She knew that.  It's her responsibility. 

 

I don't think anyone here thinks it's the responsibility of someone, anyone, to tell her; some of us simply think it's a considerate thing to do, regardless of who chose the outfit.

 

Quote

As for dress appropriateness, dress codes are made for a reason.  It's not just about 'exciting' men.  We focus on women more because women and young women are the ones who tend to push boundaries.  Men don't push those boundaries like women do.  Imagine if a male student came to school wearing tight leggings.  Or, how about males who chose to wear jeans that are so low their underwear is totally  exposed?   Unfortunately, women are still under the belief that their 'worth' has something to do with how attractive and sexy they are.   I get it on a certain level and circumstance.  However, there's a time and a place.  School and professional situations are not the place.  It hurts women.  I come from the generation of women who worked sooo hard to be taken seriously in the work place and in the world.  Many young women today don't get that.  They take it for granted.  Of course, we're not where we should be but we've made so much progress.  So, if you choose to wear revealing clothing in the professional world, you're taking us back.  You may not understand this because you don't know what it was like. 

Well, my mind is the same no matter what I wear (and I for one wear what I wear because I like it. Is it not a disservice to women to perpetuate the mindset that we can't do what we want for fear of upsetting the so-called balance? IMO, saying so is spitting in the face of everything women of the past have fought for. While no one should be half-nude at work (depending on the work, of course), it's counterproductive to continue judging people (usually chicks) based on their clothes. 

Really, who cares if a male kid wears leggings? (Haha, let's get some guys in on the great "leggings are not pants!" debate!)

Edited January 1, 2017 by TattleTeeny

[zoeysmom]

5 hours ago, MatildaMoody said:

The convention of asking how a housewife knows another is just that, a convention. It isn't something that started with LisaV and it definitely won't end with her. So why should Lisa get called out as shady for something that is a standard across the franchise when we see it happen so often that  actually call it a convention? 

I know Lisa is shady, it's what I love about her, because so few housewives do it well. But let's be real, calling her out over a standard housewife question and answer does a real disservice to her actual pot stirring talent. 

I remember thinking at the time when Erika came off as paranoid and rude, it was a pretty natural question to ask at Yolanda's event.  One would think with Tom being friends with David Foster he might even take some time off to attend.  Erika had just been so unwilling or unable to engage in conversation.  People were suppose to be honored, in cast with very successful husbands to be in the company of her husband.

If Erika felt like they were asking her about she and Yolanda's friendship because they didn't feel it genuine, it probably wasn't.  Again LVP had never mentioned her doubts about the friendship, with one simple question, she let Erika do all the work for her. 

To me it just highlighted Erika's dull and insecure personality.

[Otherkate]

4 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I don't think anyone here thinks it's the responsibility of someone, anyone, to tell her; some of us simply think it's a considerate thing to do, regardless of who chose the outfit.

 

Well, my mind is the same no matter what I wear (and I for one wear what I wear because I like it. Is it not a disservice to women to perpetuate the mindset that we can't do what we want for fear of upsetting the so-called balance? IMO, saying so is spitting in the face of everything women of the past have fought for. While no one should be half-nude at work (depending on the work, of course), it's counterproductive to continue judging people (usually chicks) based on their clothes. 

Really, who cares if a male kid wears leggings? 

Thank you. Yes. 

I work with someone (male) who wears things like leggings, tight tanks, etc. The women couldn't care less, but you heard some grumblings from the men at first, funnily enough. Granted we work in a creative field, but it's still an office. Anyway, people should wear what makes them feel good. 

And no one said it was their responsibility. It's just the kind thing to do. I personally would have done it, not because I had to but because I would have wanted to.

33 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

 

To me it just highlighted Erika's dull and insecure personality.

This really is the problem with Erika. Dull and insecure. Deadly combo.

[RedheadZombie]

So I made an off the cuff remark about Harry Hamlin showing he is cheap because I recognized the Direct TV remote.  Boy did I hear about that.  Apparently Direct TV is the bestest of the best.  Well as of this morning, I no longer have ABC, which happens to be the channel I watch the majority of my shows.  So IMO, Direct TV sucks - please cry tears of empathy.  Back on topic:

19 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

I have a feeling Dorit will pale in comparison to the next lamb up for slaughter.  Eden Sasson.   She is Rinna's find.

But I thought we've been talking endlessly about new HW's not being who they're introduced as.  So now it's thought the new HW will struggle because she's associated with Rinna?  One thing's for sure, Rinna certainly doesn't have the clout (with fans) to protect a HW she introduces, unlike LVP.  I can't imagine how much Dorit would be currently slammed if she wasn't under the cloak of the crown wearer.  Although I have to point out, LVP doesn't seem to be putting any energy into protecting Dorit.  She actually belly laughed at something Erika said at pantygate.  It reminded me of how she would laugh at Brandi's jokes.  Maybe LVP and Erika are going to align their interests, as some have suggested.  Dorit won't know what's hit her once she's been discarded.  A one and done perhaps?

15 hours ago, MatildaMoody said:

I don't think there was anything intrinsically shady about a housewife asking another how they know the person who brought them in. Mainly because the backstory is in place and it has to be explained to the audience at some point. While people may find LisaV shady, that is perfectly reasonable question that housewives have asked newbies since they started introducing new housewives to the fray. If anything it was a boilerplate question that only required an equally boilerplate answer. 

Usually, the new housewife will respond with an answer they are comfortable with. Heather Dubrow just left it at Tamra was her realtor. Taylor took a gamble and claimed Adrian was her daughter's godmother. She could have easily gone with their kids go to the same school and there would have been no controversy. 

My point is that every newbie has the opportunity to say in their own words how or if they are connected to the show. Some do it through it through a talking head, others do it through conversations with their costar. In the case of Ericka, all she had to say was she met Yolanda through her husband. 

ETA: Yolanda was introduced through LisaV. Even though the two only knew of each other they claimed a friendship through Mo. No one called it shady when Kyle asked Vanderpump how she knew Yolanda - because it is such a standard question across the franchise.

I think things would go much more smoothly if the HW who is supposedly introducing the newbie, is given a TH when newbie shows up.  The same TH can be shown through the first several episodes that newbie appears in, and there won't be awkward conversations in which a HW, innocently or otherwise, puts newbie on the spot about how she knows so and so.

I may be wrong, but I don't remember Taylor being introduced as being the mother of Adrienne's Godchild.  I clearly remember watching Taylor ask Adrienne to be Kennedy's Godmother, and Adrienne furiously back pedaling and refusing.  At the time I got a kick out of it, because I didn't like Adrienne.  I thought it was hilarious that Taylor was taking advantage of the intro that Adrienne agreed upon.  Taylor wouldn't be the first person to chose someone rich and famous as a Godparent, to ensure her child gets expensive gifts and powerful connections. 

[editorgrrl]

20 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

I have a feeling Dorit will pale in comparison to the next lamb up for slaughter, Eden Sasson. She is Rinna's find.

The description for next episode says "Lisa Rinna and Erika meet Eden, daughter of Vidal Sassoon."  So at least TPTB aren't pretending that Eden is Rinna's BFF.

Back on topic:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoyGeorge/status/814002226188296193

Boy George called Pantygate "a storm in a D-cup." What's a bra got to do with it?

[zoeysmom]

20 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

So I made an off the cuff remark about Harry Hamlin showing he is cheap because I recognized the Direct TV remote.  Boy did I hear about that.  Apparently Direct TV is the bestest of the best.  Well as of this morning, I no longer have ABC, which happens to be the channel I watch the majority of my shows.  So IMO, Direct TV sucks - please cry tears of empathy.  Back on topic:

But I thought we've been talking endlessly about new HW's not being who they're introduced as.  So now it's thought the new HW will struggle because she's associated with Rinna?  One thing's for sure, Rinna certainly doesn't have the clout (with fans) to protect a HW she introduces, unlike LVP.  I can't imagine how much Dorit would be currently slammed if she wasn't under the cloak of the crown wearer.  Although I have to point out, LVP doesn't seem to be putting any energy into protecting Dorit.  She actually belly laughed at something Erika said at pantygate.  It reminded me of how she would laugh at Brandi's jokes.  Maybe LVP and Erika are going to align their interests, as some have suggested.  Dorit won't know what's hit her once she's been discarded.  A one and done perhaps?

I think things would go much more smoothly if the HW who is supposedly introducing the newbie, is given a TH when newbie shows up.  The same TH can be shown through the first several episodes that newbie appears in, and there won't be awkward conversations in which a HW, innocently or otherwise, puts newbie on the spot about how she knows so and so.

I may be wrong, but I don't remember Taylor being introduced as being the mother of Adrienne's Godchild.  I clearly remember watching Taylor ask Adrienne to be Kennedy's Godmother, and Adrienne furiously back pedaling and refusing.  At the time I got a kick out of it, because I didn't like Adrienne.  I thought it was hilarious that Taylor was taking advantage of the intro that Adrienne agreed upon.  Taylor wouldn't be the first person to chose someone rich and famous as a Godparent, to ensure her child gets expensive gifts and powerful connections. 

My comment about Sasson came from an interview Kyle did with Heather Dubrow, and said Rinna had become acquainted with her either from an work out place or near by coffee shop.  My second impression why I thought she would be an easy target is I listened to an interview she did on the  Tomorrow Show and she was a blithering idiot.  I could not listen to the whole interview because she was so out there.  Interesting one thing Eden did say is how much she liked LVP.  I think Dorit has gotten a pretty good first season slam.  This Eden Sasson if she is half as goofy as she was in the interview, she should be an easy target.   She has Rinna's favorite qualities, she is a recovering addict, her sister OD and died in her early thirties, Beverly Sasson, her mother was an addict and the sister acted with Kim Richards on "Tuff Turf" and I think an episode of CHiP's or Eden was just rambling on about CHiPs. 

I think they should just try honesty.  I mean they all have to go through an auditioning process, but I do find Kyle is pretty honest how she knows someone.  For a couple of years her tag lines have been about abut being real, spotting a phony.   She mentioned how she didn't know Camille all that well and called her up. I do remember the godmother thing, but I thought it happened at the Reunion when Andy referenced Adrienne being the godmother to Kennedy and Adrienne just as you say backpedaled and said she and Taylor just weren't that close.  I do think Taylor was pushing the friendship and I think she did the same with Camille, as well.  They all seem to get along nowadays, but I do believe there was more Taylor love after Russell's suicide  (Except from Brandi.)  LVP gave Dorit her intro, and Kyle kind of added to it by saying how she had heard all about Dorit and PK from Boy George.  Of all the franchises, this should be the one where they are a little bit more real.  once they did the Uncensored special, there was a lot revealed and hopefully anyone contemplating a spot would watch all the episodes and that special, as it all seemed to come out in the wash after that show.

[WireWrap]

45 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

So I made an off the cuff remark about Harry Hamlin showing he is cheap because I recognized the Direct TV remote.  Boy did I hear about that.  Apparently Direct TV is the bestest of the best.  Well as of this morning, I no longer have ABC, which happens to be the channel I watch the majority of my shows.  So IMO, Direct TV sucks - please cry tears of empathy.  Back on topic:

But I thought we've been talking endlessly about new HW's not being who they're introduced as.  So now it's thought the new HW will struggle because she's associated with Rinna?  One thing's for sure, Rinna certainly doesn't have the clout (with fans) to protect a HW she introduces, unlike LVP.  I can't imagine how much Dorit would be currently slammed if she wasn't under the cloak of the crown wearer.  Although I have to point out, LVP doesn't seem to be putting any energy into protecting Dorit.  She actually belly laughed at something Erika said at pantygate.  It reminded me of how she would laugh at Brandi's jokes.  Maybe LVP and Erika are going to align their interests, as some have suggested.  Dorit won't know what's hit her once she's been discarded.  A one and done perhaps?

I think things would go much more smoothly if the HW who is supposedly introducing the newbie, is given a TH when newbie shows up.  The same TH can be shown through the first several episodes that newbie appears in, and there won't be awkward conversations in which a HW, innocently or otherwise, puts newbie on the spot about how she knows so and so.

I may be wrong, but I don't remember Taylor being introduced as being the mother of Adrienne's Godchild.  I clearly remember watching Taylor ask Adrienne to be Kennedy's Godmother, and Adrienne furiously back pedaling and refusing.  At the time I got a kick out of it, because I didn't like Adrienne.  I thought it was hilarious that Taylor was taking advantage of the intro that Adrienne agreed upon.  Taylor wouldn't be the first person to chose someone rich and famous as a Godparent, to ensure her child gets expensive gifts and powerful connections. 

Yes, Taylor did ask Adrienne to be Kennedy's GM, Adrienne hemmed/hawed and Taylor still tried to insist that she had agreed to it. LOL

I don't think a TH would work as they are filmed during and after the season is filmed and the other HWs don't see them until they get the finished episode a week before we see it. When a newbie is brought in with a shaky connection to another HW, production needs to sit both HWs down and iron out the story before filming begins or just go with the barest of connections, so and so met at a party 2 weeks ago and HW x invited her because she seemed "fun" and leave it at that. No more BS stories that we can see through right away. LOL

[MatildaMoody]

Re: Taylor and the godmother thing, Taylor was doing a talking head where she went through how she knew the other women during season 1. Taylor talked about how her daughter went the same school as Adrian's kid. As a final punctuation to that she said that Adrian was Kennedy's godmother. The audience had questions about it and Andy brought it up during the reunion.

Adrian responded that Taylor asked her to be Kennedy's godmother but that she wasn't comfortable with it because they didn't know each other that well. It was in the previously unaired footage that we actually saw the conversation between Taylor and Adrian. It was one of those moments that showed Taylor as the type of grifter she was later revealed to be.

[zoeysmom]

7 minutes ago, MatildaMoody said:

Re: Taylor and the godmother thing, Taylor was doing a talking head where she went through how she knew the other women during season 1. Taylor talked about how her daughter went the same school as Adrian's kid. As a final punctuation to that she said that Adrian was Kennedy's godmother. The audience had questions about it and Andy brought it up during the reunion.

Adrian responded that Taylor asked her to be Kennedy's godmother but that she wasn't comfortable with it because they didn't know each other that well. It was in the previously unaired footage that we actually saw the conversation between Taylor and Adrian. It was one of those moments that showed Taylor as the type of grifter she was later revealed to be.

Yep, here is Taylor claiming on the "steps of the church" Adrienne changed her mind.  http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/season-3/blogs/taylor-armstrong/adrienne-is-a-liar  Taylor was ridiculous for claiming Adrienne was her child's godmother.

I also remember Adrienne saying, and LVP agreeing, that early on they had heard Taylor's side of Russell abusing her.  Taylor is a bit disingenuous  when she decided to say Adrienne didn't support her.  Adrienne said very early on, she encouraged Taylor to be on the show to gain financial independence. 

Taylor, making up stories about Brandi being sued, but most of all failing to see on several occasions, Paul and Adrienne were really, really good to her.

[KungFuBunny]

On 12/31/2016 at 2:16 AM, Giselle said:

sorry but two episodes about old Tommy's munch muff playing peekaboo does not a story line make. Really tired of watching the plastic primpstress Barbie being played with by grown assed men. She is quite dreary, no fun nor sense of humor. She can writhe and pat her puss out the door. Booooring!

Hi Ya’ll

Erika comes across as emotionally flat-lined to me. I think she is medicated – not in as Kim was to be high, but as in maybe taking some sort of anti-depressent like Zoloft or Prozac. She comes across as a Zoned out Zombie. When she laughs, is upset, excited, amused, indifferent – it ALL comes across the same – just flat, and her reactions are off a beat and don’t ever reach her eyes.

As for this Pantygate –  my reaction would have been to tell her. If I were Ericka in that situation, where so many supposedly noticed, PK at the very least should have told Dorit and had Dorit take Ericka aside to tell her.

As flat as Ericka is, I still like her more than Dorit. Dorit grates on my nerves.

[thewhiteowl]

Maybe they thought she was aware and as she sang with autotune, had not one fuck to give.

[kokapetl]

23 hours ago, editorgrrl said:

The description for next episode says "Lisa Rinna and Erika meet Eden, daughter of Vidal Sassoon."  So at least TPTB aren't pretending that Eden is Rinna's BFF.

Back on topic:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoyGeorge/status/814002226188296193

Boy George called Pantygate "a storm in a D-cup." What's a bra got to do with it?

Cotton candy hair vs nylon rope hair. 

[zoeysmom]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 0:03 PM, editorgrrl said:

The description for next episode says "Lisa Rinna and Erika meet Eden, daughter of Vidal Sassoon."  So at least TPTB aren't pretending that Eden is Rinna's BFF.

Back on topic:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoyGeorge/status/814002226188296193

Boy George called Pantygate "a storm in a D-cup." What's a bra got to do with it?

We will see if they just trip over Eden on the street or if there is some back story.

I think Boy George, blame it on British humor, was doing a play on "Storm in a Teapot", instead of a teapot he used Erika exaggerated D-Cups.  Loosely meaning a minor event was blown out of proportion.

[walnutqueen]

45 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

We will see if they just trip over Eden on the street or if there is some back story.

I think Boy George, blame it on British humor, was doing a play on "Storm in a Teapot", instead of a teapot he used Erika exaggerated D-Cups.  Loosely meaning a minor event was blown out of proportion.

The old saying was "tempest in a teapot", but he could also be making a reference to Tempest Storm*, aka "The Tempest in a D-Cup".

ETA - *she was a well known burlesque performer & sometimes actress back in the day

Edited January 2, 2017 by walnutqueen

[zoeysmom]

13 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

The old saying was "tempest in a teapot", but he could also be making a reference to Tempest Storm*, aka "The Tempest in a D-Cup".

ETA - *she was a well known burlesque performer & sometimes actress back in the day

I originally started with tempest in a tea pot but tempest (American version) storm is the (British version).  So I am thinking since he is British he meant storm and instead of a tea pot, he used D cup.  I am not seeing the connection to a performer.

[biakbiak]

22 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

The old saying was "tempest in a teapot", but he could also be making a reference to Tempest Storm*, aka "The Tempest in a D-Cup".

ETA - *she was a well known burlesque performer & sometimes actress back in the day

Storm in a tea cup is a British variation. Also, a movie. and a British pop song, ot would make sense that Boy George used that variation.

Eta oops ZM beat me to it.

Edited January 2, 2017 by biakbiak

[kokapetl]

It's like when you handcuff a male prostitute to a radiator against his will and beat him, and get sentenced to 15 months in Her Majesty's Prison. Nuffin' really.  

[breezy424]

8 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

Cotton candy hair vs nylon rope hair. 

They're both look freakin awful... 

I'm guessing neither one wears contact lenses.  I wouldn't be able to see past the blur that would be going on in my eyes from all the mascara, eye liner, primer, etc.  And crap, who are they doing this for?  Their husbands?  Imagine what they must look like after a 'roll'.  I hope the lights are out because it's gotta be kind of frightful. 

[walnutqueen]

7 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

I originally started with tempest in a tea pot but tempest (American version) storm is the (British version).  So I am thinking since he is British he meant storm and instead of a tea pot, he used D cup.  I am not seeing the connection to a performer.

I was kind of reaching, but Erika does remind me of a burlesque performer, soooo ...  :-)

[hoodooznoodooz]

On 12/27/2016 at 10:16 PM, ivygirl said:

Whoever compared Dorit to Brittany Murphy was spot on. Now I can't unsee it, and I keep wondering when she'll ask to hear "Rollin' With the Homies" one more time.

I agree.  I also think Dorit strongly resembles Taylor Armstrong. Without the lip debacle.  

[Adira]

On 12/28/2016 at 1:02 AM, UsernameFatigue said:

I don't understand the whole 'tracking the girls while they are in NYC' thing. Aren't they just tracking their cell phones? So couldn't the girls just leave their cell phones in their room and go where ever they want without Harry and Lisa knowing? What am I missing? Now they might not do that since teenagers are so addicted to their phones they are an extension of themselves, but if they wanted to ditch their parents I don't see that it would be that hard. Any Harry had said that he had not talked to them so how did he really know where they were/what they were doing?

Harry said he was texting with them throughout the night, so on top of tracking them, he knew they had their cell phones with them and he knew where their cell phones were!  Seems like a legit way to keep track of your kids to me.

[jaync]

Quote

Really, who cares if a male kid wears leggings?

Not me. But, I also wouldn't fault others for doing a double-take or staring a bit at said leggings.

Quote

And crap, who are they doing this for?  Their husbands?  Imagine what they must look like after a 'roll'. 

I doubt Papaw Tom is tapping that thang all that aggressively.

[SparkleznConfetti]

On 12/28/2016 at 7:38 PM, Bronzedog said:

I've never met anyone who has had any kind of career in anything that haven't had to suffer assholes.  That's why it's called work.  Because it is.

People tend to forget work is not play which the reason it is a four letter work that  ends in "K" ;-)

[Bronzedog]

9 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

the lip debacle.  

HAHAHA!!!

[straightshooter]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but being forced to listen to Dorit's fake accent has resulted in my missing most of this season - I watch the episodes on my DVR in bits and pieces much later, and I fast forward every scene containing her.  Thanks for filling me in.  God, I hope she's a one and done!

[Anne Thrax]

On 12/28/2016 at 2:34 AM, Rosebud1970 said:

Dorit can just have a seat, as far as I'm concerned. She's the most affected person ever. That big house is rented, the Bentley is leased, the accent(s) are fake. And now, she's like a dog with a bone about Pantygate. 

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with LisaR and Eileen, but I do--on this. If PK was so disturbed at seeing Erika's cooch, then why didn't he discreetly let her know she was flashing him? And, no, I don't believe she was doing it on purpose. No, he'd rather go on and on and leer about what he saw to Dorit the next day, who took the bait and ran with it.

And that act at the doctor's office with the headgear and poor baby Phoenix (or whatever) was just that; an act. Oh, aren't I just the best Mummy ever!

Go away, please. You aren't adding a thing.

DorEET can take a seat with her "being a mother of small children is SO exhausting" comments, too.  As if she actually interacts with her children for more than a few minutes at a time.  

She's so lucky little Phoenix looks to be a pretty easygoing infant.  That scene where the nanny is holding her, the look on the baby's face when reaches out for DorEET's dress made me think the kid is wondering "who IS this woman who behaves in such a familiar manner toward me?"  Then the nanny trundles her back to her room so DorEET can continue on to more important activities -- lunch with the ladies.

The head shape being corrected wasn't on the side of her head at all -- it was the BACK of her head!  Like when a kid spends too much time lying on their back in their crib.  I sensed an almost complete lack of interaction between mother and baby.  As if DorEET has the children as chic little accessories to adorn her life and allow her to masquerade as a normal woman.

And she's utterly clueless as to how to interact with little "Jag". which makes me think her lack of involvement is at least a part of the reason why the kid is 2 years old and can't talk yet (and isn't potty trained yet either, judging from the diaper peeking out from the top of his little jeans.  Potty training ain't rocket science FFS). For instance, why would she ask him if he "wants to drive" when she's planning to take off for the park.  

She totally created a meltdown that could easily have been avoided by scooping him up and putting him in another car seat like the one he just got out of and taking off for the park (plus she used the meltdown as an excuse to cancel the trip.  :-< ) She could have sat in the passenger seat while he played "zoom-zoom" AFTER they got back from the park.  (I had one like that -- his favorite activity was standing in the driver seat pretending to "drize" as he pronounced it.  We still occasionally will say 'who's gonna drize?' as a family joke now that he's an adult.)

If she had a lick of sense, she'd be ashamed of her disinterest in parenting and take a pass on her fake woe-is-me this mother of toddlers thing is SO tough act.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Anne Thrax

[Grey Goose]

On 12/29/2016 at 4:13 PM, kassa said:

I am an old, though younger than Eileen, Lisa V, and Lisa Rinna, and I guess I just don't travel in the kind of classy circles where women go without underwear.  I remember when flashing your underwear in a short skirt was the fashion nightmare -- apparently now risking the full beav is preferred to panty lines showing.  Don't get it.  So my take is:

a) If you're going to wear a short skirt and no underwear, you'd damn well better micromanage every fidget, or you forfeit the "oh, I didn't mean to" defense.  Doesn't mean people should be slagging you behind your back, but it was a risk you were running, and you fell afoul of it.

b) If you see a naked part of somebody's body that you aren't supposed to be seeing, looking away and moving away is always a good choice, especially if you're the opposite sex. Picture walking in on a relative naked -- whoops, about face, it.never.happened.  [yes, you can discuss with spouse afterwards -- off camera]

c) Kyle, if you can see [what you think are] a lady's underpants in her short skirt and you're in mixed company and on national television, how about a quick, casual, friendly teasing "Hey, Erica, I see London, I see France."  This also works even if Erica is not wearing underpants! Because you are cluing her in while preserving her ability to believe you actually think she's wearing underpants!

d) The basic rule of etiquette about telling people stuff about their appearance is that if it is fixable in the moment, you tell them.  If it's not, you don't.  Button or zipper undone, vegetation stuck to teeth?  Speak up.   "Your skirt is riding up" falls neatly under this category.

Even in London, and always in France, 

Hygiene is enhanced by underpants! 

[Grey Goose]

I don't really get the panty line angst, especially with all the myriad of underwear options and these women's amazing bodies.  And I really don't care if someone doesn't wear underwear until his/her bare genitalia is sitting on surfaces where others will be.  

Should the new party accessory  be smallish anti-bacterial sheets of say 10" x 10" readily available so a guest can safely sit while the fashion maven desiring to air her vulva as a coy jewel  is sufficiently unemcumbered by common courtesy of keeping possible bodily fluids private?

Do you really want to ride in her cars knowing she plants her bare ass in it?  Sit after her on an upholstered couch?  At a restaurant?

Gross. 

[Yours Truly]

On 12/28/2016 at 6:25 PM, Lady Grump said:

It's a difference of opinion -- and I suspect, life experience. Hey, if you want to believe that Ken and Lisa are wonderful employers, who never talk down to people, awesome for you. I just happen to think differently. Going back and forth will change neither my opinion or yours. Have a great evening.

Most people put up with something at their jobs. The fact that it happens to be that she's in a service position shouldn't heighten the "offense" factor. Even if The Pumps are "demanding" employers that doesn't necessarily= abusive. There are plenty of demanding employers that want, what they want how they want it with 3 squirts of lemon in their water and four, not five, flowers in the vase that accompanies breakfast in bed. People agree to those kind of terms all the time. Why? Cause the money's right and employers know this. Throw enough money around and their ridiculous demands are met. Unless there is significant proof that she's there because she's got no other options and The Pumps are exploiting some sort of desperate circumstances all the while underpaying her and running her ragged then I think it's safe to conclude that she's competent and engaged in a mutually agreed upon arrangement. I doubt it's as sinister as all that.

[Yours Truly]

On 12/29/2016 at 1:25 PM, TattleTeeny said:

Oh--lemme clarify that: "over it" meaning she doesn't care to keep talking about it, not that she's not affected by other people talking about it. And I feel like she would have been over it altogether without all the harping on it. She seemed happy about the underwear Dorit gave her.

Am I spelling her name wrong? She's a K, not a C? Oops, sorry!

This is what I saw. Erika took it in stride, laughed a bit about it, directed th conversation to a pretty simple close... then came the revelation that the others had been talking about it and still she recovered and ended it on a pretty "it's all good" note just as Kyle's walking in where it gets picked right up again. You see Erika try to move passed the topic so it doesn't get anymore time or effort which I thought was great. You can see that it's trying her but again she manuevers beautifully out of giving it any more momentum and then LVP pops in an another attempt at giving the conversation a boost comes up. I can't remember if Kyle's entrance is what prompts the comments from Erika (that starts rattling and unraveling her "unbothered" front) or if LVP's entrance and prodding does that but Erika was well on her way to shutting it down with minimal pearl clutching. It was the continuous waves of interest that kept the topic afloat back to back to back. I think that's what frustrated Erika into engaging just a little too much and giving those nuggets of questionable replies/remarks. Had Erika had it her way she would have left it at the laughing and joking stage before Kyle walked it. That was perfect but the interference of the rest cause it to live just a tad bit too long and got us the less than thrilled responses from Erika that then hinted towards conflict. However Erika does shut it down pretty nicely before heading into the escape room. Then we have LVP bring it up again at the table which is where it's a lost cause and there will be some sort of confrontation over the whole thing to Erika's dismay. You can plainly see on Erika's face that she's completely aware that it's being dragged out for the sake of filming and the show and is not at all interested in being thrown into the spotlight in the name of manufactured drama.  Erika is completely aware of the shenanigans and it's written all over her face. Just her facial expressions break the fourth wall (third wall? I dunno) cause you can just tell that her biggest goal is to keep from being a pawn in the whole "let's create a season long conflict arc" debacle that is reality TV. I love how I can see it plain as day when it comes to Erika. Unfortunately even with her strong resolve she STILL can't completely side step the antics. I'm always rooting for her though but she did get pulled into this one. I just hope it's a shallow hole she's dug and pops out quickly and easily.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Yours Truly

[Yours Truly]

On 12/29/2016 at 7:10 PM, Avaleigh said:

Absolutely. I agree with all of this.

To me, this goes back to what I've often observed when it comes to criticizing Lisa as a person. 

I've said before that when the women on the show are complaining about Lisa, apart from Kyle, they rarely ever bring up anything good. She supposedly tried to mother Brandi on camera. She didn't attend Kim's daughter's graduation. She encouraged Brandi to bring tabloid magazines on a trip. She called Adrienne's dog "crackpot" and didn't hold her daughter's bachelorette party at the Palms. She said that she heard Yolanda's kids were healthy. She encouraged Rinna to say WhateverTF.

In this case, we have Lisa being criticized for her charitable work because she's supposedly doing it just to make herself look good. If this isn't nitpicking on somebody, I don't know what is. The expression "Bitch eating crackers" comes to mind.

Isn't the main point that she's helping animals and people with her time and money on a regular basis?

Also, is it really so ridiculous and unconscionable that a person who has a job that involves them appearing on camera as themselves for the purposes of a reality show would want to make a positive impression on people if possible? She wants to look good (in terms of personality and appearance) on camera. BFD. Is there a single woman on any RH franchise that doesn't go into the season wanting to make a positive impression on the viewers no matter how deluded they might be in going about it? 

Bitch eating crackers had a life of it's own on this thread last season..... lol...

Edited January 11, 2017 by Yours Truly