S13.E08: Week 8: Hometown Dates

[truthaboutluv]

15 minutes ago, himela said:

He is Greek!

Um isn't Bryan of Colombian descent, which would make him Hispanic?

[comosedice]

12 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Um isn't Bryan of Colombian descent, which would make him Hispanic?

Are both parents Colombian or Hispanic?

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, comosedice said:

Are both parents Colombian or Hispanic?

Don't know but I don't think Bryan has ever indicated anything about his mom being Greek and him being part Greek. He may be, who knows. Maybe we'll find out after the season is over. 

[himela]

16 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Um isn't Bryan of Colombian descent, which would make him Hispanic?

To be totally honest, I only saw his mom's name (Olga, which is a greek name) and her accent which is exactly how greeks speak in english so I assumed he was Greek. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. And please don't take my words the wrong way, I'm Greek myself and I love to talk about our pros and cons :P

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, himela said:

To be totally honest, I only saw his mom's name (Olga, which is a greek name) and her accent which is exactly how greeks speak in english so I assumed he was Greek. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. And please don't take my words the wrong way, I'm Greek myself and I love to talk about our pros and cons :P

I didn't take it in any way. I was just confused because I thought the belief was that he was Colombian, not Greek. 

[himela]

1 minute ago, truthaboutluv said:

I didn't take it in any way. I was just confused because I thought the belief was that he was Colombian, not Greek. 

Right you are totally right, he is not Greek, my bad :P

In this case, GO GO BRYAN! :P

[Ms Blue Jay]

10 hours ago, backformore said:

As to the question of why get married  - women who want children get a certain amount of financial protection when they are married.  A commitment to a child is a much greater commitment than marriage. 

I agree, a commitment to a child is a much greater commitment than marriage.  That was my point actually.  

I know everyone disagrees with studies or cites their own, but just to counterpoint, the American Psychological Association says "about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce."  Just pulling the first result I found on Google.  

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

Here's the counterpoint to THAT from refinery29.com.  

Quote

Yep, researchers have found that the rate of divorce in the U.S. actually peaked at about 40% around 1980 and has been declining ever since. And, according to data from the National Survey of Family Growth, the probability of a first marriage lasting at least a decade was 68% for women and 70% for men between 2006 and 2010. The probability that they would make it 20 years was 52% for women and 56% for men, so that percentage is closer to the frequently-cited "half," but still not there.

This doesn't exactly make it seem like the divorce rate is zero, LOL.  

Edited July 19, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[After7Only]

21 hours ago, catrice2 said:

Worse than that, ha ha! 

Billy Ocean?  Morris Day?  

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Ohwell]

9 minutes ago, After7Only said:

Billy Ocean?  Morris Day?  

Inquiring minds want to know!

I love Billy Ocean!  Morris isn't bad either.

[Lamb18]

21 hours ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

I agree with you here. I saw his mom, and my thought was "Well, now I know why the man is still single at 37." He's going to be single until either a) his mother gets more realistic about her expectations, or b) he finds more ability to say "no" to her. Doesn't look good.

 Or c) She dies.

[JudyObscure]

3 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 

Quote

Yep, researchers have found that the rate of divorce in the U.S. actually peaked at about 40% around 1980 and has been declining ever since. And, according to data from the National Survey of Family Growth, the probability of a first marriage lasting at least a decade was 68% for women and 70% for men between 2006 and 2010. The probability that they would make it 20 years was 52% for women and 56% for men, so that percentage is closer to the frequently-cited "half," but still not there.

This doesn't exactly make it seem like the divorce rate is zero, LOL.  

So, if a woman is married when the child is born it has about a 52% chance of living in a two parent home until it's grown.  If the mother doesn't get married at all,  it has a 0% chance of living in a two parent home, at all, ever.  I don't see the advantage.  Yes, divorce is hard on a child, but I would think never having a father at all would be even harder.

[Irlandesa]

25 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

So, if a woman is married when the child is born it has about a 52% chance of living in a two parent home until it's grown.  If the mother doesn't get married at all,  it has a 0% chance of living in a two parent home, at all, ever.  I don't see the advantage.  Yes, divorce is hard on a child, but I would think never having a father at all would be even harder.

Your 0% figure ignores the fact that people can live together, have children (a.k.a. create a 2-parent household) without being married.  In fact, until recently, this was the only way to go for gay and lesbian parents.

[JenMcSnark]

2 hours ago, After7Only said:

Billy Ocean?  Morris Day?  

Inquiring minds want to know!

Hey now, I love me some Morris Day!! lol

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

So, if a woman is married when the child is born it has about a 52% chance of living in a two parent home until it's grown.  If the mother doesn't get married at all,  it has a 0% chance of living in a two parent home, at all, ever.  I don't see the advantage.  Yes, divorce is hard on a child, but I would think never having a father at all would be even harder.

You seem to think marriage equals coparenting?

It doesn't.  I wasn't talking about coparenting.  You seem to equate not getting married with raising a child as a single parent, but they are not the same.  I also don't think anything's wrong with either option.  

Marriage is simply the license, how you're recognized under the law.   You're also speaking as if single fathers don't exist.... or families with 2 fathers?  Or families with 2 mothers?  They also may never have a father in the household!   Families exist in all sorts of different ways.

I'm in my thirties, and I have a friend the same age with parents who never got married.  They could be just as happy or more happy than my parents who got the license.  What's the difference to them?  Or to my friend or the way she was raised?  She has 2 parents who were committed for the sake of being committed to each other, instead of honouring the license or the title.  They also have more than one kid together!  (aka they are a real family.)

Edited July 19, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV podcast on the episode!

 

Whine & Roses: The Bachelorette Meets The (Weird, Hostile) Parents On Hometown Week!

Rachel heads home(town) with her remaining four men, with mixed results. Who will she eliminate based on their terrible family?

[JudyObscure]

8 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 You seem to equate not getting married with raising a child as a single parent, but they are not the same.  I also don't think anything's wrong with either option.  

Well yes, sorry,  I was because I was thinking of you and what you said upthread about considering having a child all on your own.  You're right, co-parenting is another option, but while you're worried about marriage because of the high rate of divorce, keep in mind that unmarried "co-parenting" couples are five times more likely than the married couple to split up.

Of course all sorts of arrangements exist and some work out wonderfully well, but we're talking about the  statistics that indicate what gives the baby the best chance.   You can find people whose single mothers got pregnant at fifteen and the child  was brought up in poverty, but is now a happy successful adult, but I wouldn't recommend that because much more often, it doesn't turn out as well.

[Ms Blue Jay]

No... never said on my own, but on my own, with someone else, regardless, having a child without getting married is an option and lifestyle for many many people.   And I'm not "worried" about marriage.  Getting married was never a goal of mine.  

Edited July 19, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

No... never said on my own, but on my own, with someone else, regardless, having a child without getting married is an option and lifestyle for many many people.   And I'm not "worried" about marriage.  Getting married was never a goal of mine.  

Right, there are lots of options and  the option to have children without getting married first is already the most popular option in  many circles.   It was when you said you didn't want to get married and then asked what the divorce rate was, that I thought worry about it ending in divorce, not actually the  marriage itself, was what made you decide not to get married.  If you simply don't want to get married then the divorce rate doesn't even matter, does it?  By all means, do whatever makes you happy.

I don't have a daughter and only one son,   so I tend to identify with other  mothers of sons  (Peter's mother, Bryan's mother) and think about the  way some of my friends have lost all contact with their grandchildren after the baby's  mama decided to move away.  I would wish for my son to have the legal rights that go along with marriage.  It's just a different viewpoint.

[lightbeam]

On 7/18/2017 at 1:06 AM, dirtypop90 said:

I knew I recognized Eric's aunt!!! http://vernamyers.com/

She was classmates with former president Obama at Harvard Law. Best part of this episode IMO . Even better in person. Tried to link her TED talk but not sure it worked.

 

Thank you so much for posting that link.The tedtalk on her website was really great and worth hearing.

[violet and green]

On 7/18/2017 at 10:29 PM, thesupremediva1 said:

I think one of the most exploitative things this show has ever done is filming Dean's family. I wouldn't be surprised if producers got wind of the home situation and forced Rachel to drag him through hometowns just to film that mini circus. It turned my stomach. I'd bet any amount of money that Dean begged to do anything for hometown other than seeing his father. And of course, he's cut as soon as they're done grabbing all the damning footage. Sick sick sick. 

It was wrong on every level to do this to Dean and all concerned, and a shame he was pushed into it and egged on by Oprah-Rachel. However... I was so thrilled to not only see an evening meal (it's been a while with this show for them to even bother having them sat before the table laden with food, not eating) but to see the food being eaten! My god!

[Canada]

Oprah-Rachel!  That's awesome!!

[Irlandesa]

12 hours ago, waving feather said:

Anyway, my point is as long as the couple set boundaries for both sides of in-laws and don't live with them, things are easier to deal. It's only when people live with each other that they start to pick faults in each other easily, especially for in-laws.

What you're describing is a healthy way to approach it.  What Rachel needs to know is what kind of boundaries Bryan is willing to establish.  He's a 37-year-old who has already lost one girlfriend due to conflict with his family.  He lives in the same town as his parents.  And his mother talked the way she talked.  I'd want to know what exactly "stealing her baby" away looked like.  Was it really that she never wanted him to spend time with his parents?  Or did she not want to spend every Sunday at their house for the Sunday dinner?   It's the Sunday dinner-type thing that creates problems when you live in the same town as your in-laws.  It's not just things that come up when you live with someone.

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I don't have a daughter and only one son,   so I tend to identify with other  mothers of sons  (Peter's mother, Bryan's mother) and think about the  way some of my friends have lost all contact with their grandchildren after the baby's  mama decided to move away.  I would wish for my son to have the legal rights that go along with marriage.

I'm confused.  What additional rights would marriage give him when it comes to kids that custodial agreements wouldn't give  him?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Irlandesa

[JenMcSnark]

I have to weigh in on Bryan's mom a little bit.  Both my niece and a good friend have MIL similar to Bryan's mom to varying degrees.  

My niece's husband is wonderful.  They bought property next door to his parents which is about 45 minutes from my brother and his wife.  They hae been married for almost 17 years and only recently has her husband started to stand up to his mother about sharing "family time" such as Sunday dinners and holidays with my niece's parents.  His mom demanded that almost all holidays be spent with them (even before they moved into the home they built on the property).  Her parents get Easter.  No lie. My niece argued about this at first as she is extremely close to her family (her husband loves her family as well) but it just wasn't worth the trouble between them in her mind.  Because it was a lot of ugly drama in the early days. 

My good friend got married very quickly (within 5 months) to a complete mama's boy who spoke of her son just like Bryan's mom.  They were divorced after a very ugly 2 years as there was no room for compromise in his mom's mind and he could not/would not argue against his beloved mother.  

"Sam" is a really, really nice guy, but he just can not stand up to his mother and, frankly, doesn't see why he should.  He always said that she knew how his mother felt when they got married, so she shouldn't expect him to compromise.  Mama is THE most important thing. 

So to me, it is a huge red flag the way that Bryan's mom and sister (?) were talking and acting.  I would not want that for myself or my daughter unless there were clear boundaries set up and agreed to by all at the get go.  Maybe Bryan and Rachel can do this, but I personally don't think it's going to change how Bryan's mom will react to the boundaries.  

She will  more than likely be like my niece's MIL who fights to have her son with her instead of recognizing that any compromise could be had especially with the families living so close.  She will not even allow a Christmas Eve/Christmas Day split.  My nephew-IL and his children MUST be at her house.  And don't even think about both families getting together at my nephew-IL/niece's house!  My niece's family must not come to their house on holidays since she expects everyone to be at her house.  

She is friendly with my brother and his wife.  My family invites them to things and they do hang out together informally from time to time such as at the kid's events.  Just not on holidays and Sunday evenings. 

[fib]

My mom has tendencies similar to Bryan's mom (though I am female, so it's not a mama's boy issue, it's just an issue).  I tried and tried to explain to my hubby why I moved away, why I insisted on renting a car when we went to visit them, why I was concerned about moving to a place where they would consider moving to. Because she is sweet, charming, and tolerable in small doses.  But she does stuff like after my son was born, she moved into my house, uninvited, for 3 weeks! AT the end of the third week,  I called my dad and told him that he had better figure out a way to convince her to get out of my house or she would wake up one morning with her bags packed and next to the front door (learned that one from the Bachelor, I did).  

Well. Cut to living in the same city, and my husband is finally figuring it out.  My mom is a well meaning, but controlling, uncompromising bitch (love ya mom, but you need therapy!) The reason this is not a complete and utter disaster? I have 36 years of having figured out how to establish boundaries with her.  I CARE about the boundaries, and I stand up for what my husband and I need and want. If I dont want to have to deal with her opinion on something? She just doesnt hear about whatever it is. I have mastered the art of, "that's a very interesting take, thanks for your opinion, I will take it into consideration".  It takes A LOT of energy to manage her.  

People with parents without mental health issues (like my hubby). They have no clue what its like.   I wish Rachel luck, but I hope she isnt wearing the rose colored glasses that my husband had on. 

[kira28]

I think Eric is the most into Rachel. I think he genuinely cares for her and is, falling for her. I think she has fun with him and he makes her feel good but their lifestyles are way too different and he'd probably never be good enough to be her husband. Rachel is smitten with Bryan but wow his mother is a head case and while I think Bryan wants to win and may have some developing feelings for Rachel I don't think he's as Into her as she is to him. Dean was way too immature and was trying to back out gracefully since the last episode and im on the fence about Peter now. But Eric definitely shows her the most genuine affection. 

[abelard]

This is my first season watching and my big takeaway is that this is a *terrible* way to try to meet one's future spouse LOL.  However, given that Rachel is in it to win it (to win a husband/father for her future kids -- though obvs also in it to win a TV career of some kind), I suppose I'm rooting for what I'll call the "Peter Scenario" at this point.  The Peter Scenario is one in which Rachel *doesn't* automatically get engaged to the "winner" at the end of the season.  Instead, she hears what Peter has been saying for several episodes: that this is a really fast timeline for a couple to decide if they want to be together forever, and what they need is *more time* together to decide.  Whether she decides that about Peter or someone else, I think that ending the season with a committed relationship that might lead to marriage is the only sane way.  From other posters, it sounds like that used to be a viable option for the end of a Bachelor/Bachelorette season.  (All that said, I also think that Peter isn't very much into Rachel as a prospective wife.  But even if Rachel picks Bryan or Eric, I think she should pick him to be her Very Serious Boyfriend with Intent to Get Engaged within the Year, not to be her immediate fiancé). 

[dirtypop90]

19 minutes ago, kira28 said:

I think Eric is the most into Rachel. I think he genuinely cares for her and is, falling for her. I think she has fun with him and he makes her feel good but their lifestyles are way too different and he'd probably never be good enough to be her husband. Rachel is smitten with Bryan but wow his mother is a head case and while I think Bryan wants to win and may have some developing feelings for Rachel I don't think he's as Into her as she is to him. Dean was way too immature and was trying to back out gracefully since the last episode and im on the fence about Peter now. But Eric definitely shows her the most genuine affection. 

Why do you think their lifestyles are way too different? Just looking at social media, they are both trying to go hollywood.  Rachel is almost completely out the door at her job.  Rachel has stated she is working remotely, part-time and looking to go into sports/entertainment.  She appears to be "on the scene" a lot. And Eric is already living in LA and flying around to different events as well.  Of the F3, he seems to have the most similar lifestyle now.  Of course, Bryan could just quit his job too, and Peter is a personal trainer, so she could go "hollywood" with either of these men.

[Irlandesa]

15 minutes ago, abelard said:

However, given that Rachel is in it to win it (to win a husband/father for her future kids -- though obvs also in it to win a TV career of some kind), I suppose I'm rooting for what I'll call the "Peter Scenario"

I agree that the "Peter scenario" is probably the smartest scenario on this timeline but let's face it, an engagement on The Bachelor/ette shows is really just a promise ring to date for the next few years. In fact, I heard on a podcast that if the duo stay engaged for two years, they can sell the ring and split the proceeds.  I'm not sure if it's true or not but it was on a podcast with people in the entertainment business. 

[waving feather]

@JenMcSnark Appreciate you sharing the different real life dynamics of in laws. It is always interesting.

I still stand by my original point that it is down to the couple in the end. If Bryan is not able to stand up to his mom and allows her to bulldoze all the time, Rachel would have a hard time and it would end badly for them. But I do see some promise with him based on what was shown on the screen. When they first arrived and his mom hugged to greet him, he didn't hesitate to include Rachel into the group hug. And even during their group conversation in the living room and the funny outtake at the end of the show, he tried to include her in the conversation instead of basking in all the attention by himself. His mother does seem like the over-involved type, but only time will tell how Bryan will handle it if Rachel decides to be a part of his family.

Regarding going Hollywood/LA, it appears to me that Rachel is the one who wants that in the future and not necessarily her 3 guys left. Rachel enjoys being in the scene.

[LennieBriscoe]

waving feather, Bryan may have "included" Rachel as you point out, but both Sis and Mom made it clear that the last gf didn't comply with the family's notion of "inclusion." So it was Adios, muchacha.

But Rachel seems ready to step in. Better her than me. 

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, fib said:

or she would wake up one morning with her bags packed and next to the front door (learned that one from the Bachelor, I did). 

Dying!

2 hours ago, fib said:

People with parents without mental health issues (like my hubby). They have no clue what its like.

I don't think it's a mental health issue; that kind of behavior is very common in certain cultures. I've worked very hard to establish and enforce boundaries with my mother, for my own sake - to me that was just part of growing up. When I see a person in their 30s still attached to mom's apron strings, I blame the child, not the mother. They're either happy with the status quo and see no reason to change it, or too weak to stand up for themselves (and by extension, anyone else). Either way, not marriage material.

[LilJen]

10 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

So, if a woman is married when the child is born it has about a 52% chance of living in a two parent home until it's grown.  If the mother doesn't get married at all,  it has a 0% chance of living in a two parent home, at all, ever.  I don't see the advantage.  Yes, divorce is hard on a child, but I would think never having a father at all would be even harder.

.? You're discounting the increasing number of couples that stay together forever without ever bothering to get married. I'm a fan of getting and staying married,for sure, but many couples never take that step, for whatever reason. Not sure of the stats on how many cohabiting couples stay together for the duration (eta: I see someone else posted stats up thread; cohabiting much more likely to split). And there are kids out there with divorced or never-married parents who do just fine.

Edited July 20, 2017 by LilJen

[JudyObscure]

5 hours ago, LilJen said:

And there are kids out there with divorced or never-married parents who do just fine.

Right.   That's why I said:

 

14 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

 

Of course all sorts of arrangements exist and some work out wonderfully well.

The first part of my post, as I already explained a few times, was talking directly to someone who I thought had chosen to have a baby with no man in the picture at all.  She has since corrected me.  I misunderstood her.  Okay?

All I know is, the general statistics say, over and over, that children of divorce are usually not as happy as those who stay married.  That's information that wasn't out there when I decided to leave my husband.  I really, really wish I had been warned because  the divorce ruined my son's life.  Yes, as you say, there are kids out there with divorced parents who do just fine, and that's what I told myself when I made my decision, but the odds were against me and I lost. You can leave the biggest jerk in the world for the nicest guy in the world, but if your kids aren't happy, chances are, you won't be happy.  At least that has been my experience. 

I know there are other, more positive stories.  In the 1970's those stories of women "finding themselves" and the children being happier because the mother was happier was all we read in the books or saw in the movies. Then, in 1981  Newsweek published the first big report on children of divorce and it was not good, particularly for boys.   It was information I would give anything to have had one year before.  People are going to do what they want to do.  I just think an informed decision is usually better than an uninformed one.

[kira28]

11 hours ago, dirtypop90 said:

Why do you think their lifestyles are way too different? Just looking at social media, they are both trying to go hollywood.  Rachel is almost completely out the door at her job.  Rachel has stated she is working remotely, part-time and looking to go into sports/entertainment.  She appears to be "on the scene" a lot. And Eric is already living in LA and flying around to different events as well.  Of the F3, he seems to have the most similar lifestyle now.  Of course, Bryan could just quit his job too, and Peter is a personal trainer, so she could go "hollywood" with either of these men.

I don't follow any of them on social media so I had no idea of anything Rachel or Eric are doing outside of the show. I just go by what I've seen each episode. 

[jade.black]

I can't believe what is usually the most boring episode of the season to me was by far the best, most interesting of this season. These hometowns were raw.

Of all the exploitative things on the show, Dean's hometown date was the worst they've ever done. It felt intrusive to be watching it and it definitely felt intrusive for Rachel to be there. She was on the sidelines, and I felt like it was inappropriate for her to pull Dean's father aside later (which he hilariously was having no part of) and try to tell him how special her relationship with Dean was when 1) It was obvious Dean's father didn't care in the least about their show-mance or her or giving the franchise any fake TV moments and 2) She had just witnessed a really intense and difficult reunion between him and Dean. As awful as the whole thing was, I liked Dean's dad just telling her he was done and saying "no" to her attempt at a Bachelor-esque talk and walking away. I felt for Dean so much through that whole thing, especially when he made that not-really-joking comment to the cameras about suppressing all of his emotions deep down. I also thought that while his dad seemed like a likable enough person on initial and shallow meeting, he clearly can't face up to the fact that he may have done wrong and left his children without the emotional support they needed when they lost their mother. The worst comments I thought he made were when he told Dean of course he couldn't understand how he was feeling having lost a mother (the way he said it made it sound like he should be forgiven for not making the effort due to that) and when he said he was glad to see Dean doing what made him happy, to which Dean asked what that was, and his father, who clearly had no idea what his son has been up to for two years, said "hanging out with beautiful women." I felt bad for Dean, bad for his sister, and bad for the whole family. (On a shallow note, I wouldn't mind seeing more of his bearded brother in the black t-shirt though.) 

I like Peter a lot more after his hometown. He seems like a normal guy with a nice family who has a bunch of close friends. As a fellow commitment-phobe, I also relate to his constant questioning of his feelings. I was intrigued when his friends mentioned how quirky he is and think that would come out more the longer you knew him. Also, he is just so freaking good-looking. I can't find a single flaw in his face. The cheekbones, the eyes, the grey hair. And damn, the man can wear a suit. I may not be feeling him on a deeper level, but he is pretty.

Eric is sweet and in my opinion, would care for her most outside of the show and put the most into making it work. They're a very cute couple, but it's obvious she sees him as more of a friend.

Hahaha Bryan. I haven't liked him from the start, but after seeing his mother, ruuunn awaaaay, Rachel! I don't at all blame Bryan's ex for getting the hell out of that situation. When his sister (?) or whoever told Rachel that there was no reason for the ex to be "threatened" by his relationship with his mom, I wanted to explain to her that no, that is a creepy relationship (the tears, the "love of my life", the "I'll kill you" remarks) and no woman should have to feel like she's competing with a man's family or needs to tiptoe around his parents. My boyfriend has an uncomfortably close family and it weirds me out, so I know it's a situation better avoided. You'll always be the outsider trying to live up to impossible expectations. His mom was already trying to wedge in there and discredit Rachel, especially with her comment about how he's brought so many women home, what makes him think this one from a TV show is it. She was giving him this "come on, you know this isn't going to work, just come home to mama" tone.  For anyone wondering the reason why Bryan was still single at 36, here it is! Then when she told Rachel she'd be marrying into the family and Rachel said yes, she wants Bryan to marry into her family too, you could tell his mother does not give one shit about Rachel's family! There will be no holidays spent with the Lindsays, trust me. Rachel better realize her family is going to be pushed the vague background in favor of Bryan's mom, or she'll be on the warpath to break the two up.

[abelard]

Quote

Then when she told Rachel she'd be marrying into the family and Rachel said yes, she wants Bryan to marry into her family too, you could tell his mother does not give one shit about Rachel's family! There will be no holidays spent with the Lindsays, trust me. Rachel better realize her family is going to be pushed the vague background in favor of Bryan's mom, or she'll be on the warpath to break the two up.

How I wish Rachel's siblings could have seen her chat with Bryan's mom before they their meeting with Bryan.  It looks like they will already be suspicious of Bryan's smarminess (thank goodness, someone needs to do that reality check for Rachel, who is getting carried away by his endless slobbering kisses), but it would have been even better if they could have seen and heard what kind of family she might be marrying into.  I can't deny that I'm hoping the next episode shows Rachel's family are able to shake some of Rachel's starry-eyed-ness over Bryan out of her.  If she were dating him in real life, if he had to interact with her friends and family periodically instead of just having these magical pre-arranged international jetset dates with her, then for sure her inner circle would have questioned his smooth-talking skeezy manner by now.  Add his family into the mix, and they would have had so much *more* to question.

That is not to say that I don't think Bryan legit cares for Rachel.  If she picks him in the end, I'll wish them luck and all that.  I mean, just because someone comes across as over-the-top doesn't mean they're a terrible person; people can *seem* inauthentic but actually *be* authentic in their feelings.  I'm just saying that for a woman to choose to be with someone like that, who has all the lines at the ready every single time, it's better for her if her confidantes can ask her the hard questions: Is he genuine?  Can you see what a show he puts on for you?  And, ideally in this case, Could you *really* live with all the demands for closeness, for time, for prioritization, that his mother will put on him?  I think dating in a reality show bubble is hugely detrimental because it minuses out all of these natural, built-in questioning and vetting mechanisms that a woman usually has.  

[CalamityBoPeep]

On 7/19/2017 at 1:00 PM, Lamb18 said:

 Or c) She dies.

 

Heh. Yeah... I had that "c" in mind, but before I typed it, decided not to say it.  ;-) Was trying to be optimistic.

Edited July 20, 2017 by CalamityBoPeep

[CalamityBoPeep]

...

Edited July 20, 2017 by CalamityBoPeep
Duplicate post.

[kingshearte]

Bryan's mom is the kind of mother who cries at her son's wedding, not because it's a wedding and people cry, but because she's "losing" her baby. Ick. I'd be running far, far from that nonsense.

Dean's family date was by far the most awkward date I have ever witnessed, but also, I think, the most genuine thing I've ever seen on this show. That family, if they have any desire to come together at all, needs some serious therapy. And I see both sides. I fully understand how Dean can be so angry about his dad's failure to step up after his mom's death, but I can also understand how a parent can fail like that. I genuinely do not know how a person picks themselves up after losing their life partner and successfully parents their children after that. I can barely imagine the kind of personal fortitude that takes. And I know that people do, but I truly do understand how some people can't. So I think they badly need an impartial third party to help them see each other's point of view — assuming they have any interest in re-forging a relationship.

I still think it's Peter. All the angst about whether or not he'll propose totally seems to me like the standard fakeout. But maybe it's just because I feel like her insistence is somewhat ridiculous. I get knowing what you want and being upfront about it, and I even get expecting some signs that a relationship is moving in a marriage-y direction if marriage is what you ultimately want. But the very idea of tossing a relationship aside if you genuinely think it has potential because the guy isn't ready to propose after 3 weeks? That's even more absurd to me than the whole concept is overall. But I guess we'll see.

[JenMcSnark]

I thought one of the worst things Dean's dad said was something like 'Wow, you're speaking from your male chakras and I never thought you were capable of that!  Good job!'  

It's just so indicative of what a stealth asshole he is.  But I did enjoy him blocking Rachelle's attempts to talk, especially when he looked at the camera for a second with his angry face and you could see the wheels turning in his head!  lol

[halkatla]

Bryan in Miami seemed extremely sleazy, beyond all the slobbering and kissing, and his family was off-putting x100. Everything about their home-town date was icky and strange.  I had no problem with Eric´s family, it seemed like Rachel hit it off with them.

[Pachengala]

I want to root for Eric for Rachel, I really do, but the problem is, he's just not cute. He looks exactly like She's All That-era Dulé Hill and I can't get there for it. Mileage varies, obviously, but that is not a handsome man (to me! Don't @ me!), especially since he's up against Peter, who a) looks like my man-crush Sebastian Stan and b) might be the best looking man ever to live in my television. 

(Not even going to speak to Chip n' Dale Cheeks and his mommy issues because NO.) 

Everything's been said about the awful bit of exploitation that was young Dean's hometown date so I'll just say this; Rachel acquitted herself terribly and showed Dean through her actions that she wouldn't be on his team when shit got real. He's better off. Godspeed, little guy.

[backformore]

Rachel bugs me when she says "I'd be lying if...."  so often and uses it incorrectly. 

saying 'I'd by lying if I said I didn't like that,"  means  you like it.  saying you didn't like it would be a lie, so you like it. 

But she says 'I'd be lying if I DIDN'T say I liked that" doesn't make sense.  If you don't say something, you're not lying. 

And then one time she said something equivalent to "I'd be lying if I didn't say I didn't like that."  Which just confused me.  

[Lamb18]

14 hours ago, kingshearte said:

I genuinely do not know how a person picks themselves up after losing their life partner and successfully parents their children after that. I can barely imagine the kind of personal fortitude that takes

In the case of fathers, I think it depends on the type of father the man was before the death of the mother. A caring father who was always into his children's emotional needs will continue to look out for them afterwards, setting his grief aside to focus on them. Also caring for his children will help his grief because he is caring for the most important thing he shared with his wife, and caring for the children will be a way to honor her after her death.  A lot of fathers may withdraw but still be there. I haven't watched the episode yet, but it sounds like Dean's father went beyond not being emotionally available. In general, good fathers will assume they are the grownups and they need to care for their children.

[dleighg]

2 minutes ago, Lamb18 said:

A caring father who was always into his children's emotional needs will continue to look out for them afterwards

He pretty much explicitly said "my job was earning money-- your mother's job was looking after the "home" ....  and I didn't know how to take over her job"

[ladle]

I know they consented to be on camera, but I thought the whole section with Dean and his family was exploitative, even by this show's standards.  I kind of felt like I needed a shower after watching.  Poor Dean.

I loved when Bryan's mom said "I'll kill you" and Rachel laughed out loud, and then the look on Bryan's mom's face was like "Bitch, I'm not fooling."  She is one piece of work. 

That said, though, I'd watch the shit out of a reality show in which she judges Bryan's potential dates.  Is that wrong?   

[waving feather]

1 hour ago, ladle said:

That said, though, I'd watch the shit out of a reality show in which she judges Bryan's potential dates.  Is that wrong?   

"You have gone out with so many girls; and you go to a show, and you fall in love, with the girl of the show?!" was the line of the episode and she nailed the whole premise of the Bachelor franchise. I would watch Bryan's mom on TV.

Edited July 21, 2017 by waving feather

[truthaboutluv]

12 hours ago, halkatla said:

Bryan in Miami seemed extremely sleazy, beyond all the slobbering and kissing, and his family was off-putting x100. Everything about their home-town date was icky and strange.

He brought Rachel to play dominoes with some old men, they did some salsa dancing and walked around a local street. The only person from his family who really said anything from what we were shown was his mother who yes, she seemed the overly invested and clingy parent but she also I thought, gave both him and Rachel good and reasonable advice about the reality of marriage. Am I missing something? Sleazy, icky and strange? Okay then.

[deSchenke]

3 hours ago, dleighg said:

He pretty much explicitly said "my job was earning money-- your mother's job was looking after the "home" ....  and I didn't know how to take over her job"

 

"I must be a pretty great dad because look how you turned out!" was something the dad also said that rubbed me the wrong way.  It seemed that Dean, his siblings, and the father stated that they all withdrew from each other and then for dad to take credit for how Dean turned out seemed ludicrous.

 

I did think it sweet and genuine when the feathers were presented to Dean and Rachel in honor of his mother.  So there was that.

 

Emily didn't have family there for the hometown date.  Melissa didn't either.  I can't figure out how or why Dean was forced to.  He obviously didn't want any part of reuniting with his dad.  Couldn't he have just gotten together with his siblings?

[halkatla]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

He brought Rachel to play dominoes with some old men, they did some salsa dancing and walked around a local street. The only person from his family who really said anything from what we were shown was his mother who yes, she seemed the overly invested and clingy parent but she also I thought, gave both him and Rachel good and reasonable advice about the reality of marriage. Am I missing something? Sleazy, icky and strange? Okay then.

I´ve never seen Bryan as sleazy and strange (although I´m grossed out by their constant kissing), until he met her for their date this week. I´m basing this opinion mostly on the way he creeped me out, he just seemed like such a loser. I don´t know what the change was, it was just something I saw. All my senses have been way off during this whole season, so maybe he was charming her ass off and looked really good, but I just felt like he had turned from a suave, sexy guy into a really sad, weird dude... Almost all the dates Rachel goes on seem really fun, and the particular activities you mentioned were not the reason for my dislike of their date.