S12.E12: A Good Husband

[Willowy]

Correct me please if I'm wrong, but I get the impression most of us are hetero here? Considering our affinity for Matthew, some for Thomas, and the fact that a good 98% of us seem to be women (again, correct me if I'm wrong), I'd really like to hear from someone who's actually gay, and their take on the episode if they'd be willing to share. I used to have one gay friend that posted here but he moved to Germany :(. Point is, we're all speaking from a hetero-normal perspective, and I'd like to hear from a gay-normal perspective. 

[secnarf]

40 minutes ago, Franky said:

Correct me please if I'm wrong, but I get the impression most of us are hetero here? Considering our affinity for Matthew, some for Thomas, and the fact that a good 98% of us seem to be women (again, correct me if I'm wrong), I'd really like to hear from someone who's actually gay, and their take on the episode if they'd be willing to share. I used to have one gay friend that posted here but he moved to Germany :(. Point is, we're all speaking from a hetero-normal perspective, and I'd like to hear from a gay-normal perspective. 

I'm not hetero.

(And I definitely don't have the same affinity for MGG that most of you guys do!)

[SVNBob]

12 hours ago, secnarf said:

I don't think having the killer be gay is a step back. It's not like when they make their unsub a straight character it reflects poorly on straight people. LGBTQ people don't always have to be portrayed in a positive way. It's helpful when they're not stereotypical, but it doesn't have to be positive. There are some LGBTQ people who are terrible human beings, just as with straight people.

While I agree with the bolded, the cynic in me can't help but think that some already homophobic people will use this episode as further "evidence" to support their homophobia.  IE: "See, gay men are obsessive psycho killers."  That's what I meant by the step back. 

As a counterpoint: the two female friends trying to help the partner leave the killer: did anyone else get the feeling they were also supposed to be a couple?  They were never explicitly referred to as such, as I recall.  But they were only ever seen together.   If they were a couple, then that would be a step forward.

12 hours ago, secnarf said:

I disagree that this episode helps to normalize same-sex relationships when the audience was constantly reminded how "other" they were.

The one couple was admittedly Othered in this episode, but I don't think it was the "usual" Othering of gay people.  They were Othered because one of them was the Serial Killer of the Day.  So we had to see him as the Other, by definition.  And his partner/obsession got Othered; partly by association with the UnSub, and partly because he was the trigger for the killing spree.

[Willowy]

1 hour ago, secnarf said:

I'm not hetero.

(And I definitely don't have the same affinity for MGG that most of you guys do!)

Thanks for sharing, what are your thoughts about the episode in regards to representation?

[secnarf]

11 hours ago, SVNBob said:

While I agree with the bolded, the cynic in me can't help but think that some already homophobic people will use this episode as further "evidence" to support their homophobia.  IE: "See, gay men are obsessive psycho killers."  That's what I meant by the step back. 

As a counterpoint: the two female friends trying to help the partner leave the killer: did anyone else get the feeling they were also supposed to be a couple?  They were never explicitly referred to as such, as I recall.  But they were only ever seen together.   If they were a couple, then that would be a step forward.

The one couple was admittedly Othered in this episode, but I don't think it was the "usual" Othering of gay people.  They were Othered because one of them was the Serial Killer of the Day.  So we had to see him as the Other, by definition.  And his partner/obsession got Othered; partly by association with the UnSub, and partly because he was the trigger for the killing spree.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by pandering to homophobes. I'd argue that that would be a step back, rather than portraying gay people as people. In general, people tend to focus on information that confirms previously-held views - 'confirmation bias'. I don't think that's any reason to portray any minority group in only a positive light.

I don't think it was just the main couple that was 'othered' - the gay victims were othered also, both in the script and in the visuals.

10 hours ago, Franky said:

Thanks for sharing, what are your thoughts about the episode in regards to representation?

Pretty much what I've already posted - it all just felt off to me, like they were trying so hard to emphasize their "message" that it had the opposite effect.

I will add that they could have done this very differently. Both in terms of the visuals (tone down the rainbows a bit!) and the script/story. We never really found out what made the unsub an unsub, since he was very controlling even before the killings and plenty of people are rejected by significant others and don't go on to be serial killers. I don't think they really gave us enough of a 'profile' there. They could have shown how him taking that path could relate to some of the discrimination that LGBTQ people deal with, particularly if they grow up in more religious or conservative communities (maybe he was put through conversion therapy, or rejected by family, making him very clingy and controlling), or it could have been something that had nothing to do with him being gay (for example, parents had an unhealthy relationship, one left the other and the other one became depressed/neglectful - or something more creative!) - I think either would have been appropriate and beneficial to the story and the 'message', if done properly.

[senin]

Linguistic help, please. When you say "othered" you mean treating someone in a different way because he/she is gay ? I think that's what you mean but I'm not sure. 

I'm finding the discussion about this episode very interesting, and I've learnt a couple of things that are imposible to learn from books, (Palm Springs having a big gay community, for example) not that they are that important, but they help you to contextualise. 

About the rainbows being excesive, I hadn't noticed until someone pointed it out, maybe because most of them were shown at that kind of "tribute" to the victims, so they didn't feel out of place.  

[Kara101]

The only rainbow flag that really annoyed me was the one obstructing Reid's face during his phone call. I thought it was distracting overall to the scene and I don't want anything obstructing his face durig close ups!

On the other hand I thought the rainbow candles at the press conference were adorable 

[secnarf]

9 minutes ago, senin said:

Linguistic help, please. When you say "othered" you mean treating someone in a different way because he/she is gay ? I think that's what you mean but I'm not sure. 

I'm finding the discussion about this episode very interesting, and I've learnt a couple of things that are imposible to learn from books, (Palm Springs having a big gay community, for example) not that they are that important, but they help you to contextualise. 

About the rainbows being excesive, I hadn't noticed until someone pointed it out, maybe because most of them were shown at that kind of "tribute" to the victims, so they didn't feel out of place.  

Speaking only for myself, I don't really mean treating someone differently. It's more emphasizing that a certain group is different from what is (rightly or wrongly) considered the 'norm', and it ends up having an isolating effect. For example, inserting the qualifier 'gay' ten thousand times. When people refer to 'gay marriage', 'gay relationships', etc, that is an example. It's not necessarily the most egregious example, and sometimes the qualifiers are appropriate and helpful in communicating a point, but I think in the show it was quite excessive. They repeatedly emphasized with both words and visuals that this is a 'gay crime' with 'gay victims' (never mind the two straight victims, who didn't seem to count since they weren't part of this 'other' group!)

I'd argue the rainbows went far beyond what I would expect for a memorial (again, considering that it wasn't just gay men targeted!). Also, Garcia wasn't wearing a rainbow headband by accident, and in the scene with Reid on the phone his face was covered by the reflection of a rainbow flag - what was the purpose of these?! It felt to me like they were trying too hard to emphasize that this is a 'gay crime', rather than a crime against people, further isolating the LGBTQ community from what they consider to be normal (i.e. heterosexual).

In a nutshell, when I am using the term "othered" I am referring to the general sense of separation and isolation of the gay people in this episode compared to "normal" (straight) people. It wasn't really one specific thing, more a bunch of little things that all work together to create this. The entire time I was watching the episode, this was the thing that kept going through my mind, taking me out of the story and creating a general feeling of discomfort.

[senin]

Thank you for the explanation, secnarf. Not an easy concept, but I understand it better now. 

Edited February 12, 2017 by senin

[Danielg342]

18 hours ago, secnarf said:

I don't think avoiding the flamboyant stereotype is a positive, though. It should just be a given. I mean, some people really are that flamboyant, but the majority of people aren't. Some people do have a higher-pitched voice, and others are like a colleague of mine who has a very deep voice and is always complaining that people are surprised he is gay just because of that.

I think I feel the same way about the "flamboyant gay stereotype" as you feel about the rainbows- it's overdone. I grant that people like that exist- I've met people like that- but Hollywood goes to that well way too often. It's almost at the point where the only time a character can be gay is if they're also upholding everything else about the stereotype, and not only is it not realistic, it's also a cliche at this point.

It's like the "standard characterizations" for black characters or Latinos, in that they're always fighting discrimination and racism in their community, or how women are always forced to deal with sexism or want to become mothers.

Yeah, it's realistic- but we can do other stories for them.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be stories where we tackle homophobia or racism or sexism or other forms of discrimination- those stories are necessary, even, because they still occur- but I think, just once, someone's "blackness" or "womanry" or "gayness" shouldn't define everything they are as a character. It should be just a part of who they are, where they are "passionate for justice" or "the world's greatest trombone player" is just as much or even more a part of their overall identity.

I mean, why are characters like Earl Hickey or Leonard Hofstadter or Tom Kirkman always heterosexual, monogamous white men? Why couldn't a black man or a woman fill those roles? Why must it always be white male characters for whom the fact that they are white male characters mean almost nothing?

I give CM credit that when it came to Morgan or Lewis or Walker that their lives have been discrimination-free, and that (apart from a line or two), Prentiss, JJ, Garcia, Blake, Calahan, Lewis and Elle never did encounter sexism in the workplace. We're still working on the "family" aspect, but this issue seems to have taken over the male characters as well, so I guess it's a bit of a wash.

At the end of the day, though, I desire a gay character who's really "X character who just happens to be gay" rather than "a gay guy first and everything else is secondary". As much as the latter is realistic, the more we go to the former, the better it is to "normalize" the homosexual community- because if we keep emphasizing someone else's differences, they'll never get included.

[secnarf]

Exactly! And I think this is actually one of the things that a show like How To Get Away With Murder does really well, and CBS in general does poorly.

Even going back to Willow/Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, these characterizations do exist. It's just unfortunate that they're not more common. I don't think 'discrimination-free' is necessarily the way to go, since discrimination does exist and is a part of life, but I do think it's important to show all of the other parts of life as well. 

Just to clarify - I'm not annoyed by rainbows in general, just in this episode specifically. As a general rule, I feel like my life could never have enough rainbows in it, which is why my annoyance at their use in episode is so jarring for me. I've never experienced that before!

[Danielg342]

48 minutes ago, secnarf said:

Exactly! And I think this is actually one of the things that a show like How To Get Away With Murder does really well, and CBS in general does poorly.

I think it's something that Shonda Rimes in general does very well. It amazes me how she can create wonderfully varied, relatable, strong but flawed characters without falling victim to pandering or idealism, as what seems to happen when someone does come up with "an unconventional non-white male lead".

To wit- Olivia Pope's a feminist, but she's not a straw feminist. Nor is she always depicted as "right". It's that kind of a balance that really makes a great writer- understanding that characters and characterizations aren't always black and white, that every side has its shades of gray.

If Rimes wasn't so over the top with her plots I'd get into her shows.

Which shows why this episode failed, much like "Broken" did- CBS so badly wanted to do a "gay episode" that it essentially cut out all the nuance and insisted that the "gayness" get turned up to 12 (I'm doing one better than Spinal Tap here, folks :P). This could have just been a story about an abusive spouse killing to keep his partner around (with the couple's homosexuality being a mere visual footnote), but no...it just had to be in "The Land of Rainbows".

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:02 PM, Bookish Jen said:

I agree. I really liked the ending for the reasons you stated. But you're much to generous with your grading of the unsub plot. I thought the unsub plot was a four at best, bad acting and no chemistry between the husbands.

For me, it was quite possibly the worst acting in the unsub plot in this show's history, period.  I wanted to kill the unsub's husband by the end.  What a whiny, irritating man.

[ReidFan]

1 minute ago, RedheadZombie said:

For me, it was quite possibly the worst acting in the unsub plot in this show's history, period.  I wanted to kill the unsub's husband by the end.  What a whiny, irritating man.

LOL!

I just had to explain to my husband why I was laughing, thanks for that :D

[MCatry]

Regarding the rainbows, it may be a cultural thing for many of you, because I just watched the entire episode without noticing them. Now that I read about it, I am curious. I guess that since I didn't know the significance behind those things, I just didn't read into those meanings you are stating here. Good to know, though.

[MCatry]

22 hours ago, Franky said:

Correct me please if I'm wrong, but I get the impression most of us are hetero here? Considering our affinity for Matthew, some for Thomas, and the fact that a good 98% of us seem to be women (again, correct me if I'm wrong), I'd really like to hear from someone who's actually gay, and their take on the episode if they'd be willing to share. I used to have one gay friend that posted here but he moved to Germany :(. Point is, we're all speaking from a hetero-normal perspective, and I'd like to hear from a gay-normal perspective. 

I am a woman, married to a guy, with three living kids and one already living in our memories. So, hetero, but not really a Gubler fan.  Lately the only character I like is Reid, but mostly because he is like the last piece of the original idea behind this to show, so in my mind he represents what is left. For me, Hotch Morgan and Reid were not only the bone of the show, but actually the flesh and the skin too. Both Prentiss and Rossi jumped in later, and although I liked them then, now after the grandpa and super spy thing, they are not my cup of tea. I only liked Garcia through the first two earlier seasons, and I just learnt to hate JJ since season 7 and despite the obvious toning down, I can't forget the 200. 

I don't know if the gay community would be pleased with the episode, but I am not. Among other things, the couple was written very poorly, and it wouldn't had worked in any kind of relationship. 

[Danielg342]

2 hours ago, MCatry said:

Regarding the rainbows, it may be a cultural thing for many of you, because I just watched the entire episode without noticing them. Now that I read about it, I am curious. I guess that since I didn't know the significance behind those things, I just didn't read into those meanings you are stating here. Good to know, though.

The rainbow is the unofficial flag of the homosexual community, because the rainbow indicates inclusiveness. This is because the rainbow features every colour on the spectrum, and the homosexual community has always stated its goal is to be included within wider society.

[auntiemel]

The spousal privilege explanation given by Reid was not true. When a spouse wants to testify to crimes that the other spouse confessed to them--especially for crimes as serious as serial murder--there are any number of ways to get that testimony admitted.

Come on, Criminal Minds! You're normally so realistic on the procedural details!

[zannej]

There have been some good points made.

As for non-hetero people. I don't know if I'm counted as one since I'm attracted to both men and women (although I tend to find women more physically attractive than men). I'm not big on putting people in boxes and labeling them.

I agree that the non-hetero characters in the episode didn't act flamboyant or stereotypically "gay". They did just come off as people. But I also agree that having the team repeatedly say "gay" this and "gay" that is what stood out as a reminder that same-sex marriage is still not considered "normal". It would be akin to someone saying "black marriage" and "black divorce" to make it sound like the coupling or uncoupling was somehow different-- which can sometimes have negative connotations.

I am glad that there have been some advancements at least. I still remember in comic books (Green Lantern) when they made a huge deal out of one of Kyle Raynor's friends being gay and how he went to a special community club and it was really hamfisted.

I didn't think the woman at the beginning was a stereotypical dumb blonde. Sure, she touched the cap when it was too hot, but at least she knew what was wrong and what she needed to do to try to fix the problem. IMO, a stereotypical dumb blonde wouldn't have been able to figure out what to do about the car being broken down. She just seemed to me like a regular woman who just had a night out who had her car break down in a bad spot.

On 2/13/2017 at 2:15 AM, auntiemel said:

The spousal privilege explanation given by Reid was not true. When a spouse wants to testify to crimes that the other spouse confessed to them--especially for crimes as serious as serial murder--there are any number of ways to get that testimony admitted.

Come on, Criminal Minds! You're normally so realistic on the procedural details!

Thank you for reminding me about that! At the time it was said I was saying "BULLSHIT!" but I completely forgot about it later on. Yeah, the whole spousal privilege thing only means that they can't force someone to testify against their spouse if they don't want to. They can't arrest them for interfering with the case or withholding evidence information the way they could if it was just a witness. So, the spouse could absolutely testify to everything the guy said to him because it isn't like doctor/patient, attorney/client, or clergy/parishioner conversations where there is an expectation of privacy because one party has taken an oath not to divulge what they were told.

[ForeverAlone]

I finally got a chance to watch this episode, and had very mixed feelings about this one. In general the profiling was better in this episode, which better be because Jim Clemente wrote it. 

HOWEVER... I did find it interesting that the team immediately assumed the killer was gay after the first gay victim was found, even though the first two victims were straight. I could understand that assumption if the murders were sexually motivated, but we saw no evidence of that. But that was really only my problem with the writing.

I do think the acting was atrocious though for most of the guest stars, especially the killer and his husband. Everything just felt so fake in the acting and the interactions between the killer and his husband. I couldn't buy that either of them were actually gay, let alone married to one another. 

Reid was nice and empathetic this episode. I do think he is in over his head by having his mother at home, and I think he is starting to realize it. But he wants to be a good son and keep her at home (and stuff her full of contraband medication), but it is probably not the best thing in the long run. I did like his interaction with the final victim after he was rescued, and I just kept getting the impression he was a bit wistful about not having some sort of romantic love in his life. It probably not what was actually the intent of that scene or his acting, but it was just the impression I got from Reid's expressions. 

[Kara101]

37 minutes ago, ForeverAlone said:

I finally got a chance to watch this episode, and had very mixed feelings about this one. In general the profiling was better in this episode, which better be because Jim Clemente wrote it. 

HOWEVER... I did find it interesting that the team immediately assumed the killer was gay after the first gay victim was found, even though the first two victims were straight. I could understand that assumption if the murders were sexually motivated, but we saw no evidence of that. But that was really only my problem with the writing.

I do think the acting was atrocious though for most of the guest stars, especially the killer and his husband. Everything just felt so fake in the acting and the interactions between the killer and his husband. I couldn't buy that either of them were actually gay, let alone married to one another. 

Reid was nice and empathetic this episode. I do think he is in over his head by having his mother at home, and I think he is starting to realize it. But he wants to be a good son and keep her at home (and stuff her full of contraband medication), but it is probably not the best thing in the long run. I did like his interaction with the final victim after he was rescued, and I just kept getting the impression he was a bit wistful about not having some sort of romantic love in his life. It probably not what was actually the intent of that scene or his acting, but it was just the impression I got from Reid's expressions. 

I interpreted Reid's expresions while talking to the final victim as a signal that Reid was thinking of "I wonder if we ever truly know someone." Or at least that's the impression that I got with the face he pulled after the victim said " I thought I found true love." I got the impression that Reid was feeling upset that someone could know and love someone for so long and not know what a bad person they were. Like he was upset with humans in general. I also think it was supposed to foreshadow the following events. If you can never truly know someone, can the team be certain of Reid's innocence? Or can Reid even be certain of his own innocence, since he can't remember the events. I didn't really get the wistful romance angle, especially considering how badly it ended for the final victim(lol). I thought it was actually kind of depressing to Reid, that even when you think you love someone you may not really know the person you think you love.

It fascinating how there are so many different interpretations! :)

Edited February 21, 2017 by Haleysgalaxy

[Danielg342]

22 minutes ago, Haleysgalaxy said:

It fascinating how there are so many different interpretations! :)

You're very right. Unfortunately, we're stuck with CM's writers, so I'm not sure how fascinating it will actually turn out.

[PMPA]

Hey all,

Disclaimer to all who I may not have communicated with before, but right up, I'm 100% Hotch/TG fan, a part of the dreaded NHNW ...lol, for lots of reasons, not what you may expect or assume, but wanted to be clear before I start.  But, I am interested in conversing and discussing the show, good or bad, if folks want to do so. Disclaimer Out

As I said I have not seen this episode, but will probably watch it for a browse when it comes on in my part of the world.  BUT,  I do have a question I would like to put to you, I suppose aimed primarily at the Americans on the board.  On reading online reviews, comments on this episode, I have to say it was the most universally disliked episode of the season so far.  Again, I am just basing this on comments I read on official FB etc.  Lots of the negatives were for many of the reasons you have detailed above.  But one particular reoccuring comment that was made actually surprised me a little, although maybe it should not have. - There were ALOT of commenters who were unhappy with the fact that anything to do with the gay lifestyle was featured, they hated it, many saying they would never watch again, etc etc. I remember thinking, jeepers if those folks tuned into some or our early evening shows, they would burst a blood vessel! Now for me personally, its unusual to see comments like that re shows. Gay characters in shows are just there, its not taboo, or shocking.  Do someone people not like it?  Yeah probably but they are a vocal minority, mainly I think because there is little tolerance for what is perceived as intolerance.

  I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere that initially the Prentiss character was supposed to be gay, but that the knew that would not wash on CBS.  Also, when Kirsten was in a gay relationship, they purposely put her with a guy (Kevin) for similar reasons.  

So my questions would be, Why did people seem so shocked to see a gay relationship on a CBS show?  Is it a typically conservative channel? And if so, was it not a risk to go with an episode like this, knowing that perhaps a large portion of your audience would be miffed?   I should say that the majority of those who I saw as directly attributing their negativity about the episode to the fact that it featured a gay couple and specifically the fact that they kissed, were women, white, 40's to 60's, and white men, late 30's and up.

Now I understand that there is a large conservative base in the US, and not looking to dig into the whats and whys of this, nor am I judgeing peoples politics, beliefs etc, I'm merely curious as an outsider.

[Danielg342]

From my vantage point, none of my criticisms had anything to do with the fact the main "episode characters" were gay. In fact, I thought their gayness was treated far better than I would expect- they weren't flamboyant or particularly effeminate, as happens all too much with gay characters. If it wasn't pointed out to me that the couple was a gay couple, I never would have noticed. 

[Willowy]

I didn't see much hate because they were gay, at all. I saw people complaining the actors had no chemistry or acting talent, that there were too many rainbow flags everywhere, and that the UnSub's motivation was unoriginal. 

Gayness on CBS shows has traditionally been actively ignored, and I was glad to see another episode of Criminal Minds put it out there. 

[thewhiteowl]

I think CBS is fairly conservative. Having lived in Palm Springs I can say that it's a fact that in certain places and especially during certain parts of the year there really are rainbow flags displayed prominently. I always find myself dismayed that some are offended by a rainbow, of all harmless and beautiful things. JMO

[Willowy]

Especially that it symbolizes inclusion, most of all. All colors, all stripes. 

[zannej]

I didn't even notice the rainbow flags. I was paying attention to the interactions and I found the acting to be a problem.

I think on paper this was a better episode than it turned out in execution. And my problem with the "gay" stuff was limited to my objection to them adding the word "gay" to the front of things that didn't need it-- like "gay divorce". I wanted to grab whoever wrote that and shake them and say "It's just DIVORCE!" Adding "gay" to it made it sound intolerant.

However, I'm sure that there are people who object to any representation of gay culture because it makes them uncomfortable to know that gay people exist. It really is sad.

[Kara101]

Ugh. I was re-watching this episode and when Reid spouted the fact that "gay couples divorce at half the rate of straight couples," I looked it up becuase I found it interesting (whats the secret?) . Turns out, it is completely false. The study (published in 2014) that the statistic was based on was based on divorce rates in only two states in 2011, before nationwide gay marriage was legalized. However, even with their small sample size of two states, the paper was debunked 3 days later. Turns out their methodology/math was wrong and same-sex couples divorce at similar rates compared to straight couples. Even the original, faulty study stated that it is likely not applicable to later years. Other studies that I found also confirmed that the divorce rate is comparable. I don't get why it is so hard for the writers to get the facts right. It is just such lazy writing. And it bothers me more because  Reid said it, and he shouldn't mess up statistics! Even though I'm pretty sure his "facts" have been wrong plenty of times before due to lazy writers. Maybe I can rationalize it that the statistics only apply in the world of criminal minds. I mean between the spousal privilege mess-up and this, do they bother to do any research at all? It's like they plug something into google and use the first headline that pops up.

And and I guess there's no secret to a long-lasting marriage :( Unfortunately, equality in marriage problems/divorces doesn't seem to discriminate.

*Okay, correction: Apparently in the Netherlands male same-sex marriages do have a lower divorce rate. However, I do not believe  this has been replicated in a respectable study in the US.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Haleysgalaxy

[zannej]

19 hours ago, Haleysgalaxy said:

Ugh. I was re-watching this episode and when Reid spouted the fact that "gay couples divorce at half the rate of straight couples," I looked it up becuase I found it interesting (whats the secret?) . Turns out, it is completely false. The study (published in 2014) that the statistic was based on was based on divorce rates in only two states in 2011, before nationwide gay marriage was legalized. However, even with their small sample size of two states, the paper was debunked 3 days later. Turns out their methodology/math was wrong and same-sex couples divorce at similar rates compared to straight couples. Even the original, faulty study stated that it is likely not applicable to later years. Other studies that I found also confirmed that the divorce rate is comparable. I don't get why it is so hard for the writers to get the facts right. It is just such lazy writing. And it bothers me more because  Reid said it, and he shouldn't mess up statistics! Even though I'm pretty sure his "facts" have been wrong plenty of times before due to lazy writers. Maybe I can rationalize it that the statistics only apply in the world of criminal minds. I mean between the spousal privilege mess-up and this, do they bother to do any research at all? It's like they plug something into google and use the first headline that pops up.

And and I guess there's no secret to a long-lasting marriage :( Unfortunately, equality in marriage problems/divorces doesn't seem to discriminate.

*Okay, correction: Apparently in the Netherlands male same-sex marriages do have a lower divorce rate. However, I do not believe  this has been replicated in a respectable study in the US.

I think that is pretty much what they do.

[MelinaBallerina]

On 2/9/2017 at 7:44 PM, MMC said:

Honestly, if it were not for the fact that I know this is something totally out of their control I would suggest that everyone who was on Twitter bombard Harry Bring, Erica Messer and whoever else concerning our feelings about the size of this cast. but then again if they are paying even the least bit of attention to their social media they have to already be aware of that fact. At the very least they need to get rid of Walker.

I like Walker.  No ego, no chip on his shoulder, no magical talent - just how a new co-worker should come in.  Personally, I'd rather get rid of JJ.  They never should have brought her back, or at least never should have made her a ninja-skilled profiler.

[Hotchgirl18]

12 hours ago, MelinaBallerina said:

I like Walker.  No ego, no chip on his shoulder, no magical talent - just how a new co-worker should come in.  Personally, I'd rather get rid of JJ.  They never should have brought her back, or at least never should have made her a ninja-skilled profiler.

Get rid of them both. I can't stand super ninja JJ. 

[R3volver]

I don't really want anyone to leave at this point.  They should've never introduced so many new characters at once(of course there were some unplanned circumstances that lead to it).  But right now I'm liking all of the characters.  Maybe one or two of the newer characters can be recurring once the Scratch storyline is wrapped up and it would be easier to balance.  I think the team is the same size as most or all of the previous seasons, but there are just more new characters.

[CrimeFan12]

1 hour ago, R3volver said:

I don't really want anyone to leave at this point.  They should've never introduced so many new characters at once(of course there were some unplanned circumstances that lead to it).  But right now I'm liking all of the characters.  Maybe one or two of the newer characters can be recurring once the Scratch storyline is wrapped up and it would be easier to balance.  I think the team is the same size as most or all of the previous seasons, but there are just more new characters.

 Season 1 had six since Penelope was recurring and JJ wasn't even in the pilot.  Seasons 2 to 11 had seven with Season 6 waffling back and forth between six and seven.  This season it is only one more person.  No big deal to me.  I like them all.  It's not like NCIS that started off with five and are now up to ten.  They doubled their cast.  CM has been steady.

[Mags80808]

On 2/12/2017 at 4:05 AM, secnarf said:

I don't think having the killer be gay is a step back. It's not like when they make their unsub a straight character it reflects poorly on straight people. LGBTQ people don't always have to be portrayed in a positive way. It's helpful when they're not stereotypical, but it doesn't have to be positive. There are some LGBTQ people who are terrible human beings, just as with straight people.

I disagree that this episode helps to normalize same-sex relationships when the audience was constantly reminded how "other" they were.

while you probably don't use this account anymore and this is a somewhat good take I'm gonna push back a bit right now so others can get more info. The problem is there isn't enough episodes supporting the lgbtq+ for there to be like "lgbtq+ people can be terible too". like it just comes off as anti-lgbtq+ if you don't show both sides of it. And the side the series likes to show is the one that paints us lgbtq+ folk in a bad light. I agree, more showing of terrible lgbtq+ people (respectful to the community though and not making their sexuality the reason they do it) but we need more showing of good lgbtq+ people.