S07.E04: Pantygate

[SoCal4Us]

8 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

Erika feels shamed by Dorit, maybe she should be a little more self aware and feel ashamed of not mastering the art of going commando and quit using fashion as an excuse.

When one of these ladies gets naked, goes commando there is a whole list of people who get a peek, in Erica's case PK, Kyle, LVP, camera person and most likely producer, the waiter, the people like Andy Cohen who see the dailies and assorted assistants. 

With Brandi and her infamous tampon string incident, Kyle gave her a card.  Two seasons later when being attacked by Brandi, Kyle brought it up.  I am hoping Dorit and Erika have buried the hatchet-or the panties, but I think Erika has a gotcha streak in her and a serious case of denial and a blame someone else streak.  Erika had hardly be upset about the run and tell situation because she did just that to LVP and Kyle to Yolanda and then denied it, initially.  So she tattles and lies. 

Exactly...and she has been filmed commando while getting a spray tan, how many people are on set?  I'm just not buying the "shocked that I flashed my private area to the new girl's husband after my going commando announcement although I wear revealing costumes on stage and have people dress me before filming" Erika.  Maybe she's been taking more acting lessons - bored and blasé have been mastered, on to shocked and surprised lol.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 

You don't sound humorless to me; I agree 100% (can I end a sentence with 100%? Did it again) 

My boyfriend worked for the city and he was always telling me about the rampant sexual harassment and other shenanigans. He said one case in particular a women who in his words "didn't exactly wear office attire, would give people inappropriate gifts at holiday exchanges, make crude remarks etc" accused a guy of sexual harassment. Then he said "no one could believe a woman like her would accuse someone of harassing her." I spent the rest of the day with an attitude and explaining to him all the things that was wrong with his statement. If  any of those people felt uncomfortable with the things she said or did then they should have reported her. This whole pantygate nonsense reminds me of this - it's a disgusting and dangerous attitude they have and only because it was Erica. 

 

 

Thank you--perfect example (and you can end a sentence like that as far as I'm concerned).

This is sort of being a "bad feminist," but I myself can blow off a few catcalls, inappropriate remarks, shit like that; it's just my nature to think, "Oh, whatever, he's an old man and thinks it's cute and friendly to call me sweetheart" or "That doofus clearly has no idea how to admire my legs quietly and might need to get out more" or "This male coworker is lucky it's just me he said that to--and also that was wrong and funny!" But that's me and I know it's not everyone and I know that those things are, at their roots, some examples of sexism; I just choose to assume people don't know better and move along (or in their own misguided way, really thought they were being complimentary). That said, if something strikes me as too far, whether it's directed at me or someone else, yes, I will take offense and say something (and I'm allowed, despite not taking offense at those other examples!).

What am I rambling about here...bad feminist, blowing off "minor" offenses, forgiving improprieties? Oh, yeah, just that "deserves it" thing is for the most part baloney. We're not talking about she punched you in the stomach so you punched her back; this is about clothes and deliberately going out of your way to make someone feel shamed. Ugh. She doesn't like it, she didn't ask for it, it's not necessary, and it's not friendlike.

Edited December 29, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[WireWrap]

30 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

You know, even though I admit that I would take a look, probably laugh and/or have a startled, scandalized reaction (because I have no poker face at all), and probably gossip a bit about it to certain people, I think "shaming" and badgering Erica about it is petty crappy. I don't care that she wears a "cunt" necklace, performs in revealing clothes, admits to going commando, or does anything else that inspires people to trot out the old "if you do Thing X, then you can't be upset when other people do Thing Y to you" excuse (way too close to the "she asked for it" defense, IMO).

If these people are actual friends (and, yes, I understand "friend" is a relative term in paid reality-show participants--I'm just goin' with the narrative we're supposed to be following in the confines of the show), then it should stop if/when the target-friend is no longer laughing with the others. She doesn't like this, and her friends should care about that. Fine, engage in some mockery--whatever. But know your audience (meaning some people are fine with this kind of thing) and also know when to stop. I don't mean to sound humorless, I swear, it's just that I wouldn't want to make my friend feel continuously (continually? I forget) bad or embarrassed or annoyed over a mistake. And because Dorit is not a close friend, her pushing of Erica on this seems even worse to me.

That said, friends would have figured out how to let her know before it went too far; some of my friends and I can have complete conversations with the tiniest of facial expressions, eye/head/hand movements, and seemingly innocuous words. I don't know whether that happened or not because of the napkin (and I don't remember to read their blogs). 

I think Dorit/PK watched the show before she/they joined and saw Erika on camera getting her privates spray tanned. So, many people have already seen her display her lady bits, again, on camera and I think it possible that Dorit thought Erika would be fine with her "teasing" her about it. Did Dorit carry it further than she should have....Yes, did Dorit misread Erika.....Yes, does Erika have a sense of humor.....NO ! LOL I also think Dorit was encouraged by those closest to Erika to do this, by that I mean Eileen and Rinna, so she really thought Erika would be fine with the joke. Also, why didn't Eileen give Erika a heads up that she had exposed herself so that she could address it herself?

[NoWhammies]

9 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

Oh my goodness, I am a copy editor full-time and freelance and I cannot tell you how often I see people use "whilst"--even in ordinary old mundane product copy for retail websites! I have no idea why they do it! OK, yeah, I do think Dorit is trying to be fancy-pants, but I just wanted to share that weirdness!

ETA: I almost always change it.

I am a full-time freelance writer, and I would never saddle my editor with "whilst."

[TattleTeeny]

I used to work with a British author so I left his in place, along with other stuff. His whole role for the magazine I worked on was that of a European industry insider, so I felt like that was OK. 

[Avaleigh]

10 hours ago, breezy424 said:

It's actually a screen shot from the video on the show.  Check out the video on LVP's blog.  It's at the 13 second mark:

http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/season-7/blogs/lisa-vanderpump/lisa-vanderpump-it-is-an

I've said this before (not directed at you Queenjen).  If Erika wasn't 'concerned' about her privates being flashed, why did she claim to use a napkin or her purse to cover herself?  I don't think she exposed herself on purpose but according to PK, LVP and Kyle it did happen.  Erika needed to just acknowledge it and stop being so indignant about it.  Erika's blog is up and now she is saying that Dorit was insinuating that she did this on purpose.  Apparently, Erika is changing lanes.  Last week, her claim was that it didn't happen because she was covered up as soon as she sat down.  IMO, it's Erika who is making the bigger deal out of all of this.  Hey, this is the woman who wears a necklace that says 'cunty' and thinks the word is cool.  Dorit gives her a joke gift about exposing it and Erika gets all bent out of shape. 

I initially thought that Erika handled the situation well. I thought she was especially gracious when she got the "gift" of panties from Dorit and complimented Dorit's taste. If it had ended there, I wouldn't have anything to say, but where Erika lost me was when she acted like she didn't understand why the subject was talked about at all. She also expected PK to be the one to give her a heads up in front of everyone that he could see? To me, that seemed like a strange expectation that wouldn't cut down on the embarrassment factor at all. (If embarrassment was what she was feeling for being called out.)  She wasn't happy that he caught a look but she would have been cool with it if he'd let her know that she was on display? That doesn't make sense to me.

At what point does Erika take *some* responsibility for the fact that the subject was discussed at all? I totally rolled my eyes when she acted indignant that it was a topic of discussion. Since we live in a society where a certain amount of modesty is expected when it comes to covering up specific parts of our bodies, I find it disingenuous of Erika to make it seem like she's horrified that multiple people got a look at her vulva. If she was that concerned about it, she had all sorts of options and at the end of the day, she thought the best option was to go commando. That was her choice and multiple people catching a glimpse of what she didn't want them to see was the risk that accompanied her choice.

That being said, I think Dorit looks more ridiculous than Erika here and agree that PK gives off a sleazy vibe. I also agree with the observation that Mauricio/Harry/Ken/Tom would have been unlikely to make the moment extra gross the way PK did.   

The more Dorit kept talking and going on about it, I found myself feeling more embarrassed for her than Erika. When they were at the restaurant, I again thought that Erika handled herself well. It reminded me of how cool and collected Erika was when she was dealing with Bethenny and her nonsense last season. 

I guess I really don't have a dog in this race but if forced to choose, I lean towards Erika's side just because she's less annoying than Dorit. 

At the same time, I'm already rolling my eyes at Erika saying in the preview that Dorit is the type of woman who makes it not fun to have to hang around other women. Here Erika is going back to those comments that indicate she has a low opinion of women in general. She's made things into gender issues before and I just don't care for it. I don't think she's a misogynist, but she does make comments on a regular basis that make it seem like she has a huge problem with women on a general level and that just rubs me the wrong way. 

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

That said, friends would have figured out how to let her know before it went too far; some of my friends and I can have complete conversations with the tiniest of facial expressions, eye/head/hand movements, and seemingly innocuous words. I don't know whether that happened or not because of the napkin (and I don't remember to read their blogs). 

The majority of the women have lost the ability to send a facial expression-too much Botox. ;-)

[Avaleigh]

2 hours ago, NoWhammies said:

I am a full-time freelance writer, and I would never saddle my editor with "whilst."

It isn't a word that I use, but I sometimes appreciate hearing it. Not from Dorit though.

The gangster character Bricktop in the movie Snatch liked to use that word. "You stop me again whilst I'm walkin' and I'll cut your fucking jacobs off."

2 hours ago, WireWrap said:

I think Dorit/PK watched the show before she/they joined and saw Erika on camera getting her privates spray tanned. So, many people have already seen her display her lady bits, again, on camera and I think it possible that Dorit thought Erika would be fine with her "teasing" her about it. Did Dorit carry it further than she should have....Yes, did Dorit misread Erika.....Yes, does Erika have a sense of humor.....NO ! LOL I also think Dorit was encouraged by those closest to Erika to do this, by that I mean Eileen and Rinna, so she really thought Erika would be fine with the joke. Also, why didn't Eileen give Erika a heads up that she had exposed herself so that she could address it herself?

Erika seems like she takes herself more seriously than I realized. I won't go so far to say that she doesn't have a sense of humor, but she doesn't seem to have much of one when it comes to herself. She can turn sour and snarky very quickly. 

I haven't been keeping up with the blogs this season and am curious to know how Erika feels about Eileen and Rinna's comments about the situation and how they basically wanted to be there eating popcorn to watch Dorit confront Erika. 

Is anybody else really enjoying Kyle's THs this season? She seems a bit feistier in general and she's thrown subtle shade at everyone this season so far save Eileen, I think. She seems like she's found a good balance. I also sympathize with her commentary that the growing success and opportunities that she and Mauricio are experiencing means that they're forced to spend more time apart than they would like.  

Regarding the casting of the show that's based on her life--I'm glad that Portia won't be playing the character that's based on her. I agree with her though that it would be too close for comfort. I find it interesting that Alicia Silverstone is playing Big Kathy. That isn't who I would have imagined at all, but I suspect that this project is going to put Big Kathy in a MUCH more flattering light than something like House of Hilton and other articles have. 

ETA:

Okay, I'm belatedly amused at the movie title I cited here considering the subject matter and title of this episode. ;p

Edited December 29, 2016 by Avaleigh

[TattleTeeny]

I think she did take it in stride, at the time and with Dorit's gift. But then it kept going and going, and she also learned that everyone had been talking about it so much among themselves as well. It happened, they laughed, she didn't freak (at the time), and now she's over it.

[zoeysmom]

39 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

I initially thought that Erika handled the situation well. I thought she was especially gracious when she got the "gift" of panties from Dorit and complimented Dorit's taste. If it had ended there, I wouldn't have anything to say, but where Erika lost me was when she acted like she didn't understand why the subject was talked about at all. She also expected PK to be the one to give her a heads up in front of everyone that he could see? To me, that seemed like a strange expectation that wouldn't cut down on the embarrassment factor at all. (If embarrassment was what she was feeling for being called out.)  She wasn't happy that he caught a look but she would have been cool with it if he'd let her know that she was on display? That doesn't make sense to me.

At what point does Erika take *some* responsibility for the fact that the subject was discussed at all? I totally rolled my eyes when she acted indignant that it was a topic of discussion. Since we live in a society where a certain amount of modesty is expected when it comes to covering up specific parts of our bodies, I find it disingenuous of Erika to make it seem like she's horrified that multiple people got a look at her vulva. If she was that concerned about it, she had all sorts of options and at the end of the day, she thought the best option was to go commando. That was her choice and multiple people catching a glimpse of what she didn't want them to see was the risk that accompanied her choice.

That being said, I think Dorit looks more ridiculous than Erika here and agree that PK gives off a sleazy vibe. I also agree with the observation that Mauricio/Harry/Ken/Tom would have been unlikely to make the moment extra gross the way PK did.   

The more Dorit kept talking and going on about it, I found myself feeling more embarrassed for her than Erika. When they were at the restaurant, I again thought that Erika handled herself well. It reminded me of how cool and collected Erika was when she was dealing with Bethenny and her nonsense last season. 

I guess I really don't have a dog in this race but if forced to choose, I lean towards Erika's side just because she's less annoying than Dorit. 

At the same time, I'm already rolling my eyes at Erika saying in the preview that Dorit is the type of woman who makes it not fun to have to hang around other women. Here Erika is going back to those comments that indicate she has a low opinion of women in general. She's made things into gender issues before and I just don't care for it. I don't think she's a misogynist, but she does make comments on a regular basis that make it seem like she has a huge problem with women on a general level and that just rubs me the wrong way. 

Last year when the two newbies Erika and Kathryn met up and Erika absolutely excoriated LVP, after her husband had done the same, and Kathryn repeated the conversation, not one person said, "it was on camera," or in RH talk, "you put it out here for the universe."  They beat Kathryn up and I thought wow, so unfair, was Erika going to just pretend to befriend LVP, because after getting caught, Erika was extra horrible to LVP and Kyle.  So I blame production, and the rest of the cast for not taking Erika to task for saying something on camera and expecting it to be some big secret and then blaming Kathryn. 

I have no idea what the other husbands would have said or done, but I am pretty certain, none of them would have advised Erika her crotch was exposed.   Was Vince an intentional omission or conscious one in your post?  Doesn't really matter because  Eileen doesn't allow him to have an opinion.

Erika is continuing to deny that she exposed herself, so there is a certain lack of self awareness.  She is making PK and Dorit out to be the bad guy.  So I see a similar pattern, on camera, explode at the receiver, instead of taking responsibility for her actions.

I do think Erika has misogynistic tendencies.  And I think she likes being a mean girl.  She takes a lot of opportunities to demean Dorit.  I know Dorit olio of accents drives most nuts, but I find it kind of funny when you have Erika and her alter ego complete with fake breasts, lips, improved teeth, color contacts to call someone out for being phony for cultivating (albeit poorly) some accent or speech affectation.  I think Kyle handles it well and in a manner not made to demean.  Erika believes other women want her life and fantasize about her Erika Jayne personality.  Not this one, I don't do raunchy well.

[WireWrap]

11 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

It isn't a word that I use, but I sometimes appreciate hearing it. Not from Dorit though.

The gangster character Bricktop in the movie Snatch liked to use that word. "You stop me again whilst I'm walkin' and I'll cut your fucking jacobs off."

Erika seems like she takes herself more seriously than I realized. I won't go so far to say that she doesn't have a sense of humor, but she doesn't seem to have much of one when it comes to herself. She can turn sour and snarky very quickly. 

I haven't been keeping up with the blogs this season and am curious to know how Erika feels about Eileen and Rinna's comments about the situation and how they basically wanted to be there eating popcorn to watch Dorit confront Erika. 

Is anybody else really enjoying Kyle's THs this season? She seems a bit feistier in general and she's thrown subtle shade at everyone this season so far save Eileen, I think. She seems like she's found a good balance. I also sympathize with her commentary that the growing success and opportunities that she and Mauricio are experiencing means that they're forced to spend more time apart than they would like.  

Regarding the casting of the show that's based on her life--I'm glad that Portia won't be playing the character that's based on her. I agree with her though that it would be too close for comfort. I find it interesting that Alicia Silverstone is playing Big Kathy. That isn't who I would have imagined at all, but I suspect that this project is going to put Big Kathy in a MUCH more flattering light than something like House of Hilton and other articles have. 

She really doesn't say much about them nor she does address any of them, Eileen, Rinna or Kyle, laughing about what happened or Eileen/Kyle encouraging Dorit to tease her about it (she could hardly call E/R out as they are her team). From Erika's blog....." Dorit is continuously talking about the “pantygate” situation, and I can’t help but feel like she’s out to start trouble. She’s rubbing her hands together with excitement as she tells Eileen and Lisa R. that she “can’t wait” to bring this topic up to me in front of other people. She tells Kyle, “I have to make fun of her.” You can see how much forethought and energy was put into this and how eager she was to rub my nose in it. This “joke” feels so contrived, like she’s trying to embarrass me."  LOL

7 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

I think she did take it in stride, at the time and with Dorit's gift. But then it kept going and going, and she also learned that everyone had been talking about it so much among themselves as well. It happened, they laughed, she didn't freak (at the time), and now she's over it.

But, she isn't "over it"! LOL

[Avaleigh]

3 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

Last year when the two newbies Erika and Kathryn met up and Erika absolutely excoriated LVP, after her husband had done the same, and Kathryn repeated the conversation, not one person said, "it was on camera," or in RH talk, "you put it out here for the universe."  They beat Kathryn up and I thought wow, so unfair, was Erika going to just pretend to befriend LVP, because after getting caught, Erika was extra horrible to LVP and Kyle.  So I blame production, and the rest of the cast for not taking Erika to task for saying something on camera and expecting it to be some big secret and then blaming Kathryn. 

I have no idea what the other husbands would have said or done, but I am pretty certain, none of them would have advised Erika her crotch was exposed.   Was Vince an intentional omission or conscious one in your post?  Doesn't really matter because  Eileen doesn't allow him to have an opinion.

Erika is continuing to deny that she exposed herself, so there is a certain lack of self awareness.  She is making PK and Dorit out to be the bad guy.  So I see a similar pattern, on camera, explode at the receiver, instead of taking responsibility for her actions.

I do think Erika has misogynistic tendencies.  And I think she likes being a mean girl.  She takes a lot of opportunities to demean Dorit.  I know Dorit olio of accents drives most nuts, but I find it kind of funny when you have Erika and her alter ego complete with fake breasts, lips, improved teeth, color contacts to call someone out for being phony for cultivating (albeit poorly) some accent or speech affectation.  I think Kyle handles it well and in a manner not made to demean.  Erika believes other women want her life and fantasize about her Erika Jayne personality.  Not this one, I don't do raunchy well.

I actually didn't intentionally omit Vince, I just forgot about him. He hasn't been around much this season, or if he has I missed him somehow. For what it's worth, I can't exactly see Vince gleefully talking about it with Eileen.

This is the ticket, this bit in bold. It's the reason Erika likes Eileen the most out of the other housewives because Eileen has gone on record that she thinks every woman wants to live the Erika Jayne lifestyle on some level. She's made it clear on more than one occasion that she admire's Erika and wishes that she could be that way at times. I think Erika eats up adoration and prefers to have friends who worship her. 

Ugh, Wirewrap, so it's clear that Erika thinks that she had no role to play in why any of this happened. I still remember her describing herself as "class" and I'm just thinking with a stunt like pantygate---in what universe is Erika Jayne all about "class"? I couldn't help but wonder if Alex McCord still watches this show and whether or not she got a giggle out of Erika using the other c word. ;p 

Too true that Erika's ass is not over it and this fact will be crystal clear when the reunion rolls around. 

I also 100% agree with your Zoeysmom take on how unfair it was for Kathryn to get pummeled for repeating information that was spoken on camera. I'm with Tamara from the OC when it comes to that shit. What sort of fool expects thinks that something is a secret when they speak about it on camera for a reality show? When it comes to these shows, I pretty much want to throw a pie in the face of anyone getting upset about people talking 'behind their back' on a reality show as if this isn't exactly what they're paid to do. 

What I find amazing about housewives shows in general is that no matter how awful I think the person is, at some point I've sided with every woman over some issue that's come up. Maybe Aviva is an exception here but I can't think of many others. This season I've found things to like about each of the women and while I can make fun of of them all for various reasons, I actually think that this is a good group and wouldn't mind if we had another season without a major cast shakeup. I'm not sold yet on Dorit staying, but the other ladies I think are a good group and look forward to seeing them together next season as well. 

I've found this season to be very watchable. Brandi, Yolanda, Kim---I'm not missing you guys!!

ETA:

I agree too that Erika has shown that she doesn't mind being a mean girl at all. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Avaleigh

[jaync]

Quote

I don't get putting down Ken and Lisa's efforts to stop the festival either.

The butthurt runs deep, yo. (The meltdown was rather spectacular.)

Quote

Erika seems like she takes herself more seriously than I realized.

Yeah, so much for her having no fucks to give. If Erika wants me to care about her feels, then she needs to stop flipping personas.                 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

But, she isn't "over it"! LOL

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!

Edited December 29, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[PhilMarlowe2]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

I think she did take it in stride, at the time and with Dorit's gift. But then it kept going and going, and she also learned that everyone had been talking about it so much among themselves as well. It happened, they laughed, she didn't freak (at the time), and now she's over it.

Also, let's not overlook that Erika didn't turn sour until Dorit passive-aggressively implied that she flashed PK on purpose. That's when Erika said she started getting pissed, and it was after that point that she started making comments along the lines of, "I still don't know if it actually happened," "He should have told me," "He was looking a little too long," etc. I think Erika was 1) embarrassed by the situation 2) pissed that Dorit implied it was intentional 3) able to sense that Dorit was not being altogether honest in her intention to "joke around." Would it have been better if Erika hadn't gotten at all defensive? Of course. But it is hard for me to assign her most of the fault for the situation when it was Dorit who really had a problem and went about it in a very covert, fake, shaming way.

Edited December 29, 2016 by PhilMarlowe2

[sarah82]

What bothers me about LVP's vocal condemnation of the Yulin dog festival is that she is not a vegetarian.  I took a look at Sur's menu and it is filled with animal products.  So I guess the torture and murder of pigs, cows, and chickens is totally cool? It makes her seem culturally insensitive - it is ok for us to torture the animals we have deemed can be tortured, but not for you to do the same.  I know that most people in the US eat pigs, cows, and chickens, but not dogs, but I think if you are putting yourself out there as an advocate, you should be held to a higher standard.  She should at least recognize the hypocrisy.

[nexxie]

27 minutes ago, sarah82 said:

What bothers me about LVP's vocal condemnation of the Yulin dog festival is that she is not a vegetarian.  I took a look at Sur's menu and it is filled with animal products.  So I guess the torture and murder of pigs, cows, and chickens is totally cool? It makes her seem culturally insensitive - it is ok for us to torture the animals we have deemed can be tortured, but not for you to do the same.  I know that most people in the US eat pigs, cows, and chickens, but not dogs, but I think if you are putting yourself out there as an advocate, you should be held to a higher standard.  She should at least recognize the hypocrisy.

Our factory farming is particularly heartless and disgusting - millions and millions of animals each year exist in tortuous conditions for their entire lives.

Edited December 29, 2016 by nexxie

[zoeysmom]

28 minutes ago, sarah82 said:

What bothers me about LVP's vocal condemnation of the Yulin dog festival is that she is not a vegetarian.  I took a look at Sur's menu and it is filled with animal products.  So I guess the torture and murder of pigs, cows, and chickens is totally cool? It makes her seem culturally insensitive - it is ok for us to torture the animals we have deemed can be tortured, but not for you to do the same.  I know that most people in the US eat pigs, cows, and chickens, but not dogs, but I think if you are putting yourself out there as an advocate, you should be held to a higher standard.  She should at least recognize the hypocrisy.

Sarah82, I think you missed the part about the festival goers of Yulin, skin and boil the dogs alive.  I will repost Ricky Gervais comments about the festival.  he addresses your issue:  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ricky-gervais-unleashes-torrent-of-c-bombs-after-being-questioned-over-chinese-dog-meat-festival-post_uk_5729ce34e4b05c31e5713ccc

I live in California and we have laws against the torture of livestock and fowl raised for consumption. 

4 minutes ago, nexxie said:

Our factory farming is particularly heartless and disgusting - millions and millions of animals each year exist in tortuous conditions for their entire lives.

The Yulin Dog Meat Festival is really not a discussion about people who eat meat.  Those who protest are not saying the folks of Yulin cannot eat meat, it is about the treatment and acquisition of the pets for food.

[nexxie]

4 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

The Yulin Dog Meat Festival is really not a discussion about people who eat meat.  Those who protest are not saying the folks of Yulin cannot eat meat, it is about the treatment and acquisition of the pets for food.

Factory farming in the U.S. is also about the torturous treatment of animals - people just justify it if they never see it, and it means they get what they want.

[zoeysmom]

Just now, nexxie said:

Factory farming in the U.S. is also about the torturous treatment of animals - people just justify it if they never see it, and it means they get what they want.

LVP isn't saying factory farming is okay and we don't where she gets her animal proteins from.  She is protesting the treatment of dogs in Yulin.  I don't get why someone can't be against a particular event and be called out for other situations they have not weighed in on.  Is there anything really wrong with stopping a barbaric cruel practice? 

For example I am against capital punishment, and I am also against murdering people, but I do believe in incarceration, which is viewed by many as cruel.  I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.  Bad and cruel things happen to people incarcerated. 

[nexxie]

1 minute ago, zoeysmom said:

LVP isn't saying factory farming is okay and we don't where she gets her animal proteins from.  She is protesting the treatment of dogs in Yulin.  I don't get why someone can't be against a particular event and be called out for other situations they have not weighed in on.  Is there anything really wrong with stopping a barbaric cruel practice? 

For example I am against capital punishment, and I am also against murdering people, but I do believe in incarceration, which is viewed by many as cruel.  I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.  Bad and cruel things happen to people incarcerated. 

It's easy for LVP (or anyone) to take a stand against something if she doesn't have to make a change in her own life by doing it. If she decided to buy all the meat for her restaurants from people who raise animals humanely on grassy fields, it would cost her something. btw, the way veal is raised in the U.S. is pure evil - wonder if LVP has veal on the menu.

[Avaleigh]

36 minutes ago, sarah82 said:

What bothers me about LVP's vocal condemnation of the Yulin dog festival is that she is not a vegetarian.  I took a look at Sur's menu and it is filled with animal products.  So I guess the torture and murder of pigs, cows, and chickens is totally cool? It makes her seem culturally insensitive - it is ok for us to torture the animals we have deemed can be tortured, but not for you to do the same.  I know that most people in the US eat pigs, cows, and chickens, but not dogs, but I think if you are putting yourself out there as an advocate, you should be held to a higher standard.  She should at least recognize the hypocrisy.

I'm not a vegan, but this is a concern/objection that I can at least understand. I totally don't get the idea that Lisa and Ken shouldn't be allowed to comment because of their wealth and privileged status. The hypocrisy though about torture being okay for some animals and not others is a fair point and I'd be interested in hearing Lisa talk more about these issues to see how she feels. I have no idea where all of the animal products that go into Lisa's restaurants comes from but I'd be surprised if they all come from California. 

I would say that one of the differences is the way the animals for the festival are acquired. At least Lisa isn't stealing some person's pet so that she can put it on the menu for one of her restaurants. 

I still don't think it's wrong to object to the festival even if a person doesn't happen to be a vegan. Surely, animals need all of the help they can get? Lisa can't save every animal and sure, I guess she could do more on a personal level for animals by changing her diet, but I don't think it's a bad thing for her to help out where she can about the issues that disturb her the most. 

I see someone who has good intentions and has made a difference to lives of numerous animals and I don't think the good things that she's done with animals are cancelled out by the fact that she isn't a vegan and doesn't run vegan restaurants. 

Still, point taken that there is a lot of animal torture going on in this country that doesn't provide the same outrage. 

[MaggieG]

2 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

The gangster character Bricktop in the movie Snatch liked to use that word. "You stop me again whilst I'm walkin' and I'll cut your fucking jacobs off."

 

OMG, I quote this movie on a daily basis.

"No thank you, Turkish; I'm sweet enough"

"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?"

"It's behind you Tyrone, whenever you reverse, things come from behind you." My husband used that one the other day when I almost backed into a garbage can :)

[Avaleigh]

1 minute ago, MaggieG said:

OMG, I quote this movie on a daily basis.

"No thank you, Turkish; I'm sweet enough"

"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?"

"It's behind you Tyrone, whenever you reverse, things come from behind you." My husband used that one the other day when I almost backed into a garbage can :)

Do you know what nemesis means? ;)

[sarah82]

21 minutes ago, nexxie said:

Factory farming in the U.S. is also about the torturous treatment of animals - people just justify it if they never see it, and it means they get what they want.

Exactly.  In general, the animals that become meat that is consumed in the US is not treated well either.  If LVP only ate humanly-raised meat, which we have no indication that she does, I would not say she is a hypocrite.  I agree that the Yulin dog festival is terrible.  That is not the question.  I am asking, why is it ok to torture a cow, if it is not ok to torture a dog?

[nexxie]

To me it looks like LVP's do-goodery is mostly about making herself look good - "Yes darling, I want to be front and center on this Gay Parade float so everybody knows how very much I care!"

[RHJunkie]

14 minutes ago, nexxie said:

It's easy for LVP (or anyone) to take a stand against something if she doesn't have to make a change in her own life by doing it. If she decided to buy all the meat for her restaurants from people who raise animals humanely on grassy fields, it would cost her something. btw, the way veal is raised in the U.S. is pure evil - wonder if LVP has veal on the menu.

Usually the things we protest are things that we don't participate in therefore, it wouldn't require us to make the same changes as we are hoping to see others make. It becomes a slippery slope when we question the awareness of causes merely because of the individual that is bringing the awareness. It's a fair point about the way animals are treated on farms but it's not an apples to apples comparison to what is going on in Yulin. If we're going to question someone's motives or place to protest or raise awareness for a particular cause, it implicitly assumes a lot about our own moral compass and that's a pretty high moral compass to live up to. I feel certain that not one person is perfect but the 'ifs and wells and buts' that arise from this conversation in this thread (not specific to you) make me think that the only way to avoid criticism even when trying to do something well meaning, is to be absolutely perfect and then people will listen to the cause and not worry about who's talking about it.

13 minutes ago, sarah82 said:

Exactly.  In general, the animals that become meat that is consumed in the US is not treated well either.  If LVP only ate humanly-raised meat, which we have no indication that she does, I would not say she is a hypocrite.  I agree that the Yulin dog festival is terrible.  That is not the question.  I am asking, why is it ok to torture a cow, if it is not ok to torture a dog?

Well by that logic, you have no clear indication that she doesn't so why do you still feel okay to call her a hypocrite? You could probably call her a hypocrite for other things, but of all things, why do so based on the things you see and know - none if which can confirm or deny the assumption that you've made? 

[nexxie]

2 minutes ago, RHJunkie said:

Usually the things we protest are things that we don't participate in therefore, it wouldn't require us to make the same changes as we are hoping to see others make. It becomes a slippery slope when we question the awareness of causes merely because of the individual that is bringing the awareness. It's a fair point about the way animals are treated on farms but it's not an apples to apples comparison to what is going on in Yulin. If we're going to question someone's motives or place to protest or raise awareness for a particular cause, it implicitly assumes a lot about our own moral compass and that's a pretty high moral compass to live up to. I feel certain that not one person is perfect but the 'ifs and wells and buts' that arise from this conversation in this thread (not specific to you) make me think that the only way to avoid criticism even when trying to do something well meaning, is to be absolutely perfect and then people will listen to the cause and not worry about who's talking about it.

Perfection isn't necessary - but LVP can't take credit for walking the walk if she's only talking the talk.

[RHJunkie]

15 minutes ago, nexxie said:

Perfection isn't necessary - but LVP can't take credit for walking the walk if she's only talking the talk.

Do you have knowledge of LVP stealing dogs and boiling them alive at her parties?? Unless you want to shift goal posts, then I would say that she's walking the walk of not being guilty of the very thing she is trying to protest. There is a greater discussion to be had on the subject of how animals are treated when they are meant to be for food consumption but it seems very small for anyone to take away from a charitable cause. If the world had to do nothing or do everything just so to please the people who want you to 'walk all of the walk', then probably far less would get done in the way of raising awareness and making change. Your bias is moving the subject away from the cause and on to the person when the person shouldn't matter at all.

If I feel passionately about finding homes for orphans and donate my time and money to that cause, does it mean that I don't care about the children with cancer, about human trafficking, etc.? Again, it's a slippery slope. Just a general suggestion - save judgement for when people use their time and resources for things that have little to no purpose. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by RHJunkie

[zoeysmom]

11 minutes ago, nexxie said:

Perfection isn't necessary - but LVP can't take credit for walking the walk if she's only talking the talk.

She isn't participating in stealing, skinning and boiling dogs alive.

LVP also advocates for gays and the LGBTQ community, she isn't gay, but she feels it is an important cause.  I don't think she has to endorse every LBGTQ cause or even be nice to every LGBTQ person. 

[sarah82]

19 minutes ago, RHJunkie said:

Well by that logic, you have no clear indication that she doesn't so why do you still feel okay to call her a hypocrite? You could probably call her a hypocrite for other things, but of all things, why do so based on the things you see and know - none if which can confirm or deny the assumption that you've made? 

I would expect if she served humanely raised meat in her restaurants you would see it on the menus, websites, etc.  Restaurants that go to the effort and expense to keep humanely raised meat generally use it as a big advertising point.  I would also expect her to have mentioned it at some point.  Why would she be so vocal in other animal advocacy areas but keep this a big secret?

[nexxie]

2 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

She isn't participating in stealing, skinning and boiling dogs alive.

LVP also advocates for gays and the LGBTQ community, she isn't gay, but she feels it is an important cause.  I don't think she has to endorse every LBGTQ cause or even be nice to every LGBTQ person. 

As I said above...

To me it looks like LVP's do-goodery is mostly about making herself look good - "Yes darling, I want to be front and center on this Gay Parade float so everybody knows how very much I care!"

LVP makes sure she gets plenty of press for her efforts, so they are definitely used for PR, but it also seems that these causes are very much part of the role she has decided to play in life.

[sarah82]

7 minutes ago, RHJunkie said:

If I feel passionately about finding homes for orphans and donate my time and money to that cause, does it mean that I don't care about the children with cancer, about human trafficking, etc.? Again, it's a slippery slope. Just a general suggestion - save judgement for when people use their time and resources for things that have little to no purpose. 

That is not the same thing.  It is not like she is a vegetarian, but she choses to focus her time protesting Yulin and not the US farm industry.  She supports the US farm industry through her consumption of meat products and owning and running restaurants that serve meat products.

[RHJunkie]

Just now, sarah82 said:

I would expect if she served humanely raised meat in her restaurants you would see it on the menus, websites, etc.  Restaurants that go to the effort and expense to keep humanely raised meat generally use it as a big advertising point.  I would also expect her to have mentioned it at some point.  Why would she be so vocal in other animal advocacy areas but keep this a big secret?

You're probably right but I didn't address your comment because I thought you were wrong. I addressed your comment because you suggested that you under certain circumstances you wouldn't feel comfortable using the the word hypocrite yet under circumstances that are derived from your own deductive reasoning and assumption, you are comfortable with using the term. If we're going to have a discussion about LVP's intentions and hypocrisies, can we also raise the question of why you and others care so much to take away from the cause just to cut down the person that's talking about it? At the end of the day, most people don't donate to a cause or care about cause because LVP, Angelina Jolie, etc. care about it. People donate and care about a cause because perhaps someone with a platform to share with a large audience used said platform and touched on an issue that you happen to feel strongly about. 

[WireWrap]

28 minutes ago, nexxie said:

To me it looks like LVP's do-goodery is mostly about making herself look good - "Yes darling, I want to be front and center on this Gay Parade float so everybody knows how very much I care!"

Lisa/Ken have supported the LGBT cause way before she ever joined the show, back when they lived in England, well before she was ever on TV. Most of the charities/causes they support they did so before the HW show came along. The only new cause is the Yulin one and that was brought to their attention only 2 - 3 years ago and she uses the show to help bring awareness to it, something she would not be able to do as successfully if she wasn't on the show. Condemning her/them for using their positions on the show to do good is wrong, really wrong IMO.

[nexxie]

Just now, WireWrap said:

Lisa/Ken have supported the LGBT cause way before she ever joined the show, back when they lived in England, well before she was ever on TV. Most of the charities/causes they support they did so before the HW show came along. The only new cause is the Yulin one and that was brought to their attention only 2 - 3 years ago and she uses the show to help bring awareness to it, something she would not be able to do as successfully if she wasn't on the show. Condemning her/them for using their positions on the show to do good is wrong, really wrong IMO.

I'm not condemning her, just saying that imo Lisa is mostly about Lisa's image of herself.

[sarah82]

6 minutes ago, RHJunkie said:

You're probably right but I didn't address your comment because I thought you were wrong. I addressed your comment because you suggested that you under certain circumstances you wouldn't feel comfortable using the the word hypocrite yet under circumstances that are derived from your own deductive reasoning and assumption, you are comfortable with using the term. If we're going to have a discussion about LVP's intentions and hypocrisies, can we also raise the question of why you and others care so much to take away from the cause just to cut down the person that's talking about it? At the end of the day, most people don't donate to a cause or care about cause because LVP, Angelina Jolie, etc. care about it. People donate and care about a cause because perhaps someone with a platform to share with a large audience used said platform and touched on an issue that you happen to feel strongly about. 

My personal opinion is that it undermines the cause.  It makes it seem like she comes from a place of cultural insensitivity.  Saying torturing all animals is wrong presents a clear message.  Saying torturing some animals is wrong, but torturing others is ok does not.

[WireWrap]

1 minute ago, nexxie said:

I'm not condemning her, just saying that imo Lisa is mostly about Lisa's image of herself.

I disagree, I do think you are condemning her. You are saying that she wouldn't support any cause/charity unless it garners her positive press and that just is not the case because she was doing this way before she was ever on TV, before she was ever a "celebrity/bravoleberty". So your assumption of why she does this is off base. Had Lisa/Ken never supported a cause before they joined the cast I would/could agree with you but again, that isn't the case at all.

[PhilMarlowe2]

1 hour ago, zoeysmom said:

LVP isn't saying factory farming is okay and we don't where she gets her animal proteins from.  She is protesting the treatment of dogs in Yulin.  I don't get why someone can't be against a particular event and be called out for other situations they have not weighed in on.  Is there anything really wrong with stopping a barbaric cruel practice? 

For example I am against capital punishment, and I am also against murdering people, but I do believe in incarceration, which is viewed by many as cruel.  I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.  Bad and cruel things happen to people incarcerated. 

This made me laugh because, as someone who has eaten as SUR, I can assure you her animal proteins are not coming from pastured, organic farms. The food is terrible.

That said, I see both sides of the situation. I am not going to fault LVP for her charity efforts with dog rescue and Yulin. As a fellow dog-lover, it is hard for me to criticize her for taking action and giving visibility to something that is obviously near and dear to her heart. In my mind, criticizing someone for taking charitable action is not the most productive way to go about things.

But, as an overall animal lover, I too have felt myself getting annoyed by LVP's claims to love animals while actively participating in the continued success of the meat industry - which, let's be clear, is awful. Maybe it is not quite at the level of skinning and boiling dogs alive, but many of these factory farms are not too far afield. There  definitely seems to be a bit of disconnect here as to what is going on in our own backyards. And the fact that Lisa owns restaurants makes it seem all the more glaring. I know many people are unaware of the true extent of how horrible it is - and perhaps LVP doesn't quite realize what she is serving up at Villa Blanca, SUR and PUMP - but when you do know these things, it is hard not to roll your eyes a little at someone who is so loudly championing a cause while turning a (perhaps unknowing) blind eye to her very own culpability in other areas. And I can understand being annoyed that she will most likely never change her menus (or her financial bottom line) for the sake of maintaining a higher standard of ethics when it comes to the treatment of animals.

That said, I do think her love of dogs is sincere. I don't think she does this simply for the image. I just think there is a bit of a double standard that is characteristic of much of the world at large when it comes to the treatment of animals.

Edited December 29, 2016 by PhilMarlowe2

[Avaleigh]

2 hours ago, nexxie said:

It's easy for LVP (or anyone) to take a stand against something if she doesn't have to make a change in her own life by doing it. If she decided to buy all the meat for her restaurants from people who raise animals humanely on grassy fields, it would cost her something. btw, the way veal is raised in the U.S. is pure evil - wonder if LVP has veal on the menu.

Veal is not on the menu at Villa Blanca, Sur, or Pump. They do serve lamb though at VB and SUR. 

I don't know, I still say it's better to help a little than to do nothing at all. I've made contributions to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals but am not a vegan. Does this make me a cruel hypocrite? Should I have not bothered with my contributions to ASPCA because some people feel that it's cruel to consume animal products even under "humane" circumstances? 

2 hours ago, WireWrap said:

Lisa/Ken have supported the LGBT cause way before she ever joined the show, back when they lived in England, well before she was ever on TV. Most of the charities/causes they support they did so before the HW show came along. The only new cause is the Yulin one and that was brought to their attention only 2 - 3 years ago and she uses the show to help bring awareness to it, something she would not be able to do as successfully if she wasn't on the show. Condemning her/them for using their positions on the show to do good is wrong, really wrong IMO.

Thank you. So if Lisa had been quietly telling friends off camera about the Yulin Festival, that would have been seen as preferable to her talking about it on television where she can bring awareness to thousands (millions? i don't know how this show is doing in the ratings.) of people? I don't get that. Spreading awareness about an issue that you want to change is generally a good thing, but when Lisa does it her intentions aren't interpreted as being genuine even though she's long gone out of her war for the causes she cares about before she ever landed a spot on this show. To me it seems like the complaint is more with Lisa's personality than with the efforts she's making for the animal causes that are closest to her heart. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Avaleigh

[nexxie]

3 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

I disagree, I do think you are condemning her. You are saying that she wouldn't support any cause/charity unless it garners her positive press and that just is not the case because she was doing this way before she was ever on TV, before she was ever a "celebrity/bravoleberty". So your assumption of why she does this is off base. Had Lisa/Ken never supported a cause before they joined the cast I would/could agree with you but again, that isn't the case at all.

What I'm saying is what I've posted.

[nexxie]

1 minute ago, Avaleigh said:

Veal is not on the menu at Villa Blanca, Sur, or Pump. The does serve lamb though at VB and SUR. 

I don't know, I still say it's better to help a little than to do nothing at all. I've made contributions to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals but am not a vegan. Does this make me cruel hypocrite? Should I have not bothered with my contributions to ASPCA because some people feel that it's cruel to consume animal products even under "humane" circumstances? 

I haven't called Lisa a "cruel hypocrite" or said she shouldn't bother - but I do stand by everything I have actually posted.

[Vicky8675309]

Was that a squash blossom necklace Kyle was wearing? It was gorgeous!

[ghoulina]

30 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

I disagree, I do think you are condemning her. You are saying that she wouldn't support any cause/charity unless it garners her positive press and that just is not the case because she was doing this way before she was ever on TV, before she was ever a "celebrity/bravoleberty". So your assumption of why she does this is off base. Had Lisa/Ken never supported a cause before they joined the cast I would/could agree with you but again, that isn't the case at all.

Not saying I agree or disagree on this issue, but it's possible Lisa could have been doing it for positive press/attention BEFORE the show. Obviously she's on a whole other level now, but these people weren't "nobodies" before Bravo came along. 

 

28 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

I don't know, I still say it's better to help a little than to do nothing at all. I've made contributions to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals but am not a vegan. Does this make me cruel hypocrite? Should I have not bothered with my contributions to ASPCA because some people feel that it's cruel to consume animal products even under "humane" circumstances? 

It's a hard road to navigate. I will openly admit I struggle with whether my lifestyle fully reflects views I have on certain issues. None of us are perfect. You can take a stand about one thing and then realize something else needs addressing. But I agree that it's better to do something, rather than absolutely nothing. Baby steps. 

[kassa]

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.

Edited December 29, 2016 by kassa

[TattleTeeny]

3 hours ago, sarah82 said:

What bothers me about LVP's vocal condemnation of the Yulin dog festival is that she is not a vegetarian.  I took a look at Sur's menu and it is filled with animal products.  So I guess the torture and murder of pigs, cows, and chickens is totally cool? It makes her seem culturally insensitive - it is ok for us to torture the animals we have deemed can be tortured, but not for you to do the same.  I know that most people in the US eat pigs, cows, and chickens, but not dogs, but I think if you are putting yourself out there as an advocate, you should be held to a higher standard.  She should at least recognize the hypocrisy.

I have to say that I am with you on this, but I also subscribe to the "every little bit helps" philosophy. I try hard not the be That Vegan, but I can't say I don't sometimes want to question my own animal-advocate/omnivore friends sometimes (e.g., people who rail on Facebook about how awful it is to eat horse meat even though they eat another kind every day). But that does not go well and so I don't do it! Also, I don't think it's necessarily fair to fault someone for things they may not know, whether it's because they simply just don't or because they don't want to. However, if they, like LVP, are trying to help some animals in some ways, they do care and they're not doing nothing--everyone can't do everything (which is a reality I kind of struggle with daily).

Also, "humanely raised" is generally not much better in the US for pigs, chicken, or cattle. The differences are small. (Ugh, I'm sorry if that came off exactly how I didn't want to sound.)

Edited December 29, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[WireWrap]

2 minutes ago, 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.   

LOL I have tried to think of ways PK or the others could have let Erika know on camera, that she was inadvertently flashing them, without embarrassing her further in the moment and I can't. I really believe that had someone brought it to her attention right there and then, Bravo would have included a screen shot of her fuzzy nether regions on camera right before they showed that someone cluing her in. LOL

[zulualpha]

I wonder if her glam squad makes sure her "fuzzy nether regions" are always ready for their close up.  Hair and make up for the "beav"?

[zoeysmom]

16 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

LOL I have tried to think of ways PK or the others could have let Erika know on camera, that she was inadvertently flashing them, without embarrassing her further in the moment and I can't. I really believe that had someone brought it to her attention right there and then, Bravo would have included a screen shot of her fuzzy nether regions on camera right before they showed that someone cluing her in. LOL

I keep thinking right after Erika told the Brits their humor was mean how it would have gone over that she was exposing her nether regions.  She probably would have argued with them, her being the fashion forward one.  After Erika said something about adopting a British accent so one could insult someone, it would have been great for PK in a southern drawl to advise he could see her puss.

The only the situation could have been avoided is if Erika would have worn pants.  Like Kyle and LVP. 

[Duke2801]

Huh.  Who knew that it was possible to find nefarious intentions behind somebody's efforts to help stop animal torture, as well as find loving homes for homeless animals.  I truly do learn new things every day. 

Personally I don't fault anyone for trying to make a difference where they can, when they can - no matter what the charity. I think that trying to make the world a better place should be applauded, not condemned. Even when you can't stand the person doing the good deed. 

Like I can't stand Joanna Krupa (from the now-defunct Real Housewives of Miami) but I still cheer on her animal rights activism. And even Lisa V annoys me at certain times - I am not a Lisa apologist by any means!  But, ...it's possible to separate the person/personality from their actions.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Duke2801