Faux Life: Things That Happen On TV But Not In Reality

[Kel Varnsen]

35 minutes ago, possibilities said:

stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

They had a habit of deciding who they thought was the perp, grabbing that person without any real evidence, and then roughing them up and letting them go when it turned out they were wrong--- but it was treated like no big deal, they were sexy macho heroes and this behavior was part of their rogue genius or something.

That was one of the reasons why I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 (and Chicago PD) too. That and the fact that they could solve major crimes or take down like a huge organizer crime ring in like a day.  I mean I'm not asking a CBS cop show to be The Wire, but at least show them having to change clothes at least once in the time it takes to bring down a human trafficking ring. 

But the police brutality thing was annoying too. I mean if you want to show a cop doing that I am ok with it if it works story wise. But the fact that it seems to work every time was so frustrating. Like they always pick up the right guy and after they beat him up he always tells them where the stash house is or where his partner is hiding. No one ever gives the wrong information, either because they don't know the truth and making up anything will make the beating stop, or because they are the right person but giving the cops made up information buys you time and wastes there time.

[proserpina65]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

What we don't have in Hollywood are police procedurals where their heroes are genuinely allowed to make mistakes. Unless it's a "special episode", we never see them arrest the wrong suspect, follow a dubious lead, or make the incorrect analysis, and the cases the heroes close are always perfect and never seem up for review.

We'll never see the heroes fail to pick up a piece of evidence, and all the evidence they do get is of pristine quality that could never be questioned.

Oh, and the confessions the criminals give are always air tight.

Funny thing is, Law & Order original recipe did have things like this happen throughout the early seasons, particularly in season one.  Especially arresting the wrong suspect.  Though, of course, they eventually got the correct person by the end of the show.  Those kinds of things happened less and less often in the later seasons.

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

They had a habit of deciding who they thought was the perp, grabbing that person without any real evidence, and then roughing them up and letting them go when it turned out they were wrong--- but it was treated like no big deal, they were sexy macho heroes and this behavior was part of their rogue genius or something.

The original Steve McGarrett would've been horrified.  He was very by-the-book.

 

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But the police brutality thing was annoying too. I mean if you want to show a cop doing that I am ok with it if it works story wise. But the fact that it seems to work every time was so frustrating. Like they always pick up the right guy and after they beat him up he always tells them where the stash house is or where his partner is hiding. No one ever gives the wrong information, either because they don't know the truth and making up anything will make the beating stop, or because they are the right person but giving the cops made up information buys you time and wastes there time.

I've seen literally 1 episode of Chicago PD and this crap is pretty much why.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

I've ranted about this before, but Law and Order SVU was really bad for this too. I  know Lake is a controversial character in the fandom, but I really liked him. And he gets treated like a crazy person by the rest of the characters and even bullied by Stabler for reasonably suggesting that maybe the person they're pursuing isn't guilty. He ends up being right. Does anyone apologize or rethink their approach to the job? Nope.

I actually just finished reading a book by Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, and he basically argues your average person is incompetent at their job. His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

[Shannon L.]

The only tv show that I've been able to suspend disbelief over the horrible things that a character in law enforcement does is 24, but then, that was kind of the premise of the show: Get the bad guys asap and at all costs.  Otherwise,  I'll give shows a little leeway, but something like what's being described on Hawaii 5-0 is a bit much-especially if it's a regular thing.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

The only tv show that I've been able to suspend disbelief over the horrible things that a character in law enforcement does is 24, but then, that was kind of the premise of the show: Get the bad guys asap and at all costs.  Otherwise,  I'll give shows a little leeway, but something like what's being described on Hawaii 5-0 is a bit much-especially if it's a regular thing.

If memory serves the kneecapping was a 24 terrorist H5-0 episode. Like 24 they had nukes go off in Hawaii. After the first season when SEAL and Naval Intelligence officer McGarrett brought many imaginative enhanced interrogation tricks they settled down to chaining folks to a chair in the basement and not stopping the questions  even as suspects/sources tried to invoke their rights.

[possibilities]

Sadly, unethical behavior is probably one of the more realistic things tv shows offer us, so maybe it's not actually appropriate for this thread!

IRL, torture is shown to not be an effective way to get info, so even if it's urgent, shooting someone's knee is not the best way to go, however.

--

Something I do find unrealistic is that tv shows (broadcast, at least) show people in bed, clearly post-sex, and the woman has her bra on and the guy pulls back the covers to get out of bed and he's got his underwear on. Maybe there are people who have sex that way, but it's nothing I've ever heard of IRL, and certainly not the norm.

I realize they need to keep things covered for the camera, but it still makes me laugh every time/

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

Sadly, unethical behavior is probably one of the more realistic things tv shows offer us, so maybe it's not actually appropriate for this thread!

IRL, torture is shown to not be an effective way to get info, so even if it's urgent, shooting someone's knee is not the best way to go, however.

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. But the fact that brutality always works and never sends the cops on a wild goose chase is super annoying.

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. 

😈

McGarrett only answered to the governor. But then the governor answered to the big bad, Wo Fat

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:00 AM, Danielg342 said:

I agree it's a good spot for a meeting, but is it a good spot for a secret meeting? One where one- or both, or all- of the attendees risk capture or serious harm if they're seen visibly in public? Is it also a great place to discuss sensitive trade or state secrets, when others in the park could potentially hear what is being said?

This directly ties into another TV trope that has nothing to do with spying or espionage, how two characters can have a conversation and not be overheard regardless of where they are. Or who they're talking about, like a third character who might even be in the same room. It's like echo location in reverse.

[andromeda331]

17 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. But the fact that brutality always works and never sends the cops on a wild goose chase is super annoying.

Same here. Burn Notice is the only show I've seen that points out that torture isn't reliable. Which it isn't. People being torture will say anything to make it stop or the first lie they can think of. Also a lot of them don't break. I know it's normally the "hero" or star of the show that never breaks. But a lot of normal people don't. During WWII a lot of resistance members never broke no matter how much they were tortured. 

Edited June 7 by andromeda331

[Danielg342]

13 hours ago, possibilities said:

I take it that's not the kind of fallibility you want to see!

No...I'm thinking more about fallibility but in a non-catastrophic sense. For example, the detective records the wrong name during questioning because he's talking to someone with a thick accent. Or the prosecutor that has to deal with a forensic lab where one vital piece of evidence was not handled properly (but is still useable).

At the extreme end, I'd love to see more detective/police shows tackle a case that was resolved previously (preferably one we'd seen before) but they have to re-open it because the guy they caught escaped conviction, and it wasn't because the detective and/or the prosecutor were bad at their jobs. Cases are rarely ever cut-and-dry in real life and sometimes new evidence emerges that changes the analysis of the original case. It would be nice if Hollywood acknowledged this without throwing the heroes under the bus.

10 hours ago, Zella said:

His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

Heh. Having worked in a 500 person factory, I can attest this is true. I say it all the time to my brother. It's rare indeed to find someone who isn't just really good at their jobs but also dedicated enough to it that they will do it right.

That said, I don't see it as people are all incompetent- I think the vast majority of people, especially those who stick around their jobs for a while, have at least some competence, otherwise they wouldn't stay employed. What I believe is the culprit is the general human tendency to not want to do a lot of work. So most people will do all they can to do the least amount of work possible, and this involves cutting corners, ignoring certain duties, rushing tasks, not always following procedure to the letter, etc. With experience, most people know on their job what they can and can't get away with, and, usually, it works out for them.

The only problems are that some people take the whole "cutting work" thing too far and, even if someone doesn't go too far in cutting out aspects of their work, sometimes the lack of following protocols and procedures will catch up to them. Many times the mistake isn't catastrophic. Other times it is. This kind of nuance is something I wish Hollywood would acknowledge a bit more often.

10 hours ago, possibilities said:

Something I do find unrealistic is that tv shows (broadcast, at least) show people in bed, clearly post-sex, and the woman has her bra on and the guy pulls back the covers to get out of bed and he's got his underwear on. Maybe there are people who have sex that way, but it's nothing I've ever heard of IRL, and certainly not the norm.

I realize they need to keep things covered for the camera, but it still makes me laugh every time/

One of those unfortunate realities about broadcast TV...I wish things were different but there's only so much we can do.

What I think I would like to see- because it's happened in my relationships and I'm sure it's happened in others- is a couple who is completely naked (or as naked as standards allow) and they have a major argument that isn't related to sex in some way. Or they're around the house and they're naked, because they're at home and no one's there to judge them on their looks.

There are too many times where Hollywood equates bare skin with sexiness and I wish they wouldn't do that all the time.

[meep.meep]

16 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

No...I'm thinking more about fallibility but in a non-catastrophic sense. For example, the detective records the wrong name during questioning because he's talking to someone with a thick accent. Or the prosecutor that has to deal with a forensic lab where one vital piece of evidence was not handled properly (but is still useable).

At the extreme end, I'd love to see more detective/police shows tackle a case that was resolved previously (preferably one we'd seen before) but they have to re-open it because the guy they caught escaped conviction, and it wasn't because the detective and/or the prosecutor were bad at their jobs. Cases are rarely ever cut-and-dry in real life and sometimes new evidence emerges that changes the analysis of the original case. It would be nice if Hollywood acknowledged this without throwing the heroes under the bus.

 

Your first one was just done on a show called Criminal Record starring Peter Capaldi.  Someone wrote down a witness's name wrong and then the cops couldn't find him for further questioning so things went wrong.

The second one I'm pretty sure was done on Prime Suspect but I may be remembering wrong.

There are no nudists on TV.  The parents of one of my high school boyfriends were nudists.  He warned me, but I forgot.

 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, meep.meep said:

Your first one was just done on a show called Criminal Record starring Peter Capaldi.  Someone wrote down a witness's name wrong and then the cops couldn't find him for further questioning so things went wrong.

The second one I'm pretty sure was done on Prime Suspect but I may be remembering wrong.

There are no nudists on TV.  The parents of one of my high school boyfriends were nudists.  He warned me, but I forgot.

 

Monk, Murdoch Mysteries and the original Night Court had an episode with nudists. Jane and Maura discussed it after learning lab tech Susie and her boyfriend go on nudist retreats. 

[DoctorAtomic]

When Lucifer migrated to Netflix, there was a nudist retreat they visited to question people about a crime. Hilarity ensued. 

 

[Danielg342]

I'm not surprised the British shows provided some examples of realistic fallibility. Those shows tended to be a bit more realistic. I just wish we had more examples on this side of the pond, because we don't see it enough from Hollywood.

Also, I wasn't talking about nudists. I'm aware a lot of shows have nudists. I'm talking about "everyday" people being, occasionally, doing something non-sexual, likely at home (where they could get away with it) in the nude or mostly in the nude. Because- although it really could just be me- I'm sure there are people who doff at least some of their clothes when others are not around. I remember when I worked at the factory that when I got home I usually took off my pants because they got uncomfortable after a long day.

[Shannon L.]

Beware if you are the spouse/partner/child of a law enforcement officer (especially Federal law enforcement) or a politician--you will more than likely be kidnapped for a political ideal or murdered as retribution.

[Shrek]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:15 AM, Shannon L. said:

Beware if you are the spouse/partner/child of a law enforcement officer (especially Federal law enforcement) or a politician--you will more than likely be kidnapped for a political ideal or murdered as retribution.

The thing is we're not that far off it being reality rather than just a tv thing.

[Affogato]

On 6/6/2024 at 2:47 PM, Zella said:

I've ranted about this before, but Law and Order SVU was really bad for this too. I  know Lake is a controversial character in the fandom, but I really liked him. And he gets treated like a crazy person by the rest of the characters and even bullied by Stabler for reasonably suggesting that maybe the person they're pursuing isn't guilty. He ends up being right. Does anyone apologize or rethink their approach to the job? Nope.

I actually just finished reading a book by Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, and he basically argues your average person is incompetent at their job. His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

I found that book, which I read when it came out, had a lot of i teresting bits. I still think about it. 

[andromeda331]

People who have their house or office robbed of everything including furniture somehow get it all back. 

Sister Sister had two homeless men take everything while Roger was letting them stay at the house with them. Even though they left it at the end of the street every single thing was still there and returned. 

Night Court College fraternity brothers on a scavenger hunt took everything from Harry's office. Next episode everything's back. 

The Nanny-Fran's mugger gives her and Maxwell tickets to show and steals everything from the house. Next episode it's all back.

[Bastet]

Our house was burglarized when I was six, and the burglars were almost caught, but escaped on foot, so we got back everything that was in the truck they left behind, just not the jewelry which they presumably had on them.  But, yes, we were the minority and most people never see their stuff again, so if most TV burglaries result in the stolen items being returned, that's definitely an On TV thing.

[Blergh]

Somewhat along these lines, the wealthy Walnut Grove storekeepers Nels and Harriet Oleson in LHOTP went belly up with the rest of their town at the beginning of Season Five and saw their late-19th century bordello style furnishings get confiscated so Harriet was humbled at having to sweep nothing but bare wooden plank floors before having to leave their once-prosperous store and home supposedly forever (which led to one of Harriet's most touching and vulnerable moments with Caroline trying to console her).

OK, just a few episodes later, Nels somehow got VERY lucky at roulette while playing drunk in the big bad city of Winoka . This prompted Harriet eagerly to eagerly exclaim 'Look at all that MONEY! Oh, I LOVE you, Nels! Of course, I'll go back to Walnut Grove with you!'

Yep,-not only did their poverty instantly erased and they resumed their spot at the top of the Walnut Grove food chain (with Harriet having learned nothing from this reversal of fortune)  but they somehow got exactly the same garish furnishings BACK upon their return! LOL

Edited July 28 by Blergh

[Notabug]

Not only do people who are robbed get everything back down to the last teaspoon, it is all in perfect condition.  Not so much in real life.  Crooks are really not all that careful handling the goods.  A friend got her furniture back-with major water damage from the basement where it was stashed.  Another got back her grandma's good china with half of it broken.  Dents and scratches and rips and tears are part of the deal when it comes to stolen goods.

[Dimity]

11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

People who have their house or office robbed of everything including furniture somehow get it all back. 

Or people have a flood or other catastrophe and then miraculously in the next episode the house looks exactly the same.  On Everybody Loves Raymond in one episode  they have a  small fire in the kitchen and the last scene is them looking at wallpaper and curtain samples to replace what was damaged.  Fortunately for them they didn't actually have to choose anything because they were able, I guess, to find the exact same wallpaper and curtains they already had because the next episode nothing had changed.

[Mrsmaul2021]

30 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Or people have a flood or other catastrophe and then miraculously in the next episode the house looks exactly the same.  On Everybody Loves Raymond in one episode  they have a  small fire in the kitchen and the last scene is them looking at wallpaper and curtain samples to replace what was damaged.  Fortunately for them they didn't actually have to choose anything because they were able, I guess, to find the exact same wallpaper and curtains they already had because the next episode nothing had changed.

 

 

I lived through a fire in 2010, water and smoke damage are a beast, The fire was in the living room but the walls were black all the way up to the attic from smoke damage

[Is Everyone Gone]

Ok just thought of this: ever noticed that on tv shows, people in their late-30s/early 40s never have any stray silvers? That is typically the age when stray silvers start showing up, but not in tv or movies.

[Dimity]

So many sitcoms where the couple share a bed and it's usually a double bed or even smaller (not sure what to call it, bigger than a twin but not as big as a double).  Not realistic to me at all.  I guess it's to make the filming of scenes where they are in bed together easier (?) but otherwise I'm thinking  definitely a faux thing.  

[Affogato]

12 hours ago, Dimity said:

So many sitcoms where the couple share a bed and it's usually a double bed or even smaller (not sure what to call it, bigger than a twin but not as big as a double).  Not realistic to me at all.  I guess it's to make the filming of scenes where they are in bed together easier (?) but otherwise I'm thinking  definitely a faux thing.  

Also everyone sleeps lying on their backs. Maybe not everyone, but I’m guessing a disproportionate number. Of course the makeup, too, I’m sure has been mentioned before. 

[proserpina65]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:27 PM, Dimity said:

So many sitcoms where the couple share a bed and it's usually a double bed or even smaller (not sure what to call it, bigger than a twin but not as big as a double).  Not realistic to me at all.  I guess it's to make the filming of scenes where they are in bed together easier (?) but otherwise I'm thinking  definitely a faux thing.  

It's realistic to me for couples to be sharing a double bed because most people I know don't have queen or king sized beds.  Now, smaller than a double?  That is weird.

[Dimity]

11 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

It's realistic to me for couples to be sharing a double bed because most people I know don't have queen or king sized beds. 

I honestly cannot think of a single couple I know who has anything smaller than a queen size bed.  Most of them are show offs and have king size.  Which I would definitely go for if it wouldn't mean having to get rid of every other piece of furniture in the bedroom!

[Mabinogia]

I'm single and I have a queen sized bed. Haven't had anything smaller since college. 

[Quof]

Mike and Molly were not sleeping in a double bed.  Dan and Roseanne perhaps, because that's all they could afford. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

I honestly cannot think of a single couple I know who has anything smaller than a queen size bed.

I don't even know any single people who have a double bed; most singles I know have queens and most couples I know have kings (and the ones who don't would if they had the space).  I haven't noticed a lot of couples in double beds on TV -- Roseanne and Dan Conner back in the day, because mattress shopping for two large people in a small bed was an episode, but nothing current is springing to mind.  I'll have to pay attention.

[Browncoat]

Lucy and Ricky had single beds.

[Dimity]

7 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Lucy and Ricky had single beds.

So did Rob and Laura on The Dick Van Dyke Show.  Nowadays instead of separate beds separate rooms seems to be a trend.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Browncoat said:

Lucy and Ricky had single beds.

And the actors were actually married at the time. Now TV has more sex than any movie.

[Blergh]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

And the actors were actually married at the time. Now TV has more sex than any movie.

What's really ironic in hindsight is that Lucy and Ricky STARTED sleeping together in a double bed but then when Lucy became pregnant, the powers that be insisted that she and Ricky would have to sleep in separate beds from that point on [and Little Ricky would be their only child].

Of course, it also needs to be said that Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz,Sr. were elated with her latest pregnancy being healthy and were eager to have her iconic character ALSO be pregnant. However, CBS Standards and Practices consulted a Catholic priest, Protestant minister and a rabbi [the jokes tell themselves here] who insisted not only on the separate beds for these married characters but also that while Lucy could make the most of physical comedy while pregnant, none of the characters could actually use the term of 'pregnant' on the air- 'expectant' or even the French enceint were acceptable, though.

Regardless, the episode in which she gave birth (which aired the very same day Miss Ball bore Desi, Jr. via a c-section) in January,1953 not only got the series' highest ratings but actually had higher ratings that President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Inauguration the very next day !

[Chaos Theory]

Single and have a double bed.   It was cheaper and really what do I need with a big bed?   Like anything/everything else; the size of your bed depends on the cultural norm of your area/friend group.

Edited August 14 by Chaos Theory

[Affogato]

16 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Lucy and Ricky had single beds.

That was the law. Also if they were on the single bed together one had to have a foot touching the floor. Tv codes. 

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Single and have a double bed.   It was cheaper and really what do I need with a big bed?   Like anything/everything else; the size of your bed depends on the cultural norm of your area/friend group.

I have a queen but a double bed is fine for one person, in my opinion that is plenty roomy. Size of the room also a consideration. 

Edited August 14 by Affogato

[proserpina65]

17 hours ago, Bastet said:

I don't even know any single people who have a double bed; most singles I know have queens and most couples I know have kings (and the ones who don't would if they had the space).  I haven't noticed a lot of couples in double beds on TV -- Roseanne and Dan Conner back in the day, because mattress shopping for two large people in a small bed was an episode, but nothing current is springing to mind.  I'll have to pay attention.

We obviously know very different people because almost no one I know who is single has anything bigger than a double bed either.

I suspect economics has a lot to do with this.  Queen/King mattresses and bed linens are definitely more expensive.

4 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Single and have a double bed.   It was cheaper and really what do I need with a big bed?   Like anything/everything else; the size of your bed depends on the cultural norm of your area/friend group.

Exactly.  Hell, I didn't even have a double bed until I was nearly 30, and I only got that one because my brother & his wife were moving to a smaller house and didn't have room for the extra bed.

Edited August 14 by proserpina65

[Chaos Theory]

One of the funniest episodes of late series Malcolm In The Middle was  about Hal and Louis fighting when she brings home a king sized bed and he thinks it’s a sign she is putting distance between them.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

We obviously know very different people because almost no one I know who is single has anything bigger than a double bed either.

I suspect economics has a lot to do with this.  Queen/King mattresses and bed linens are definitely more expensive.

Queen bedding is only more expensive than full/double if you pay the full retail price. Even then, a set of queen sheets is only $10 more than the full at Target. I find in my neck of the woods that there are always more queen sets marked down on clearance than full ones. Also, it's pretty common in my area for kids to get a full/double bed than a twin, so the stores now get in more juvenile comforter sets than adult ones. 

[Angeltoes]

19 hours ago, Blergh said:

Practices consulted a Catholic priest, Protestant minister and a rabbi [the jokes tell themselves here] who insisted not only on the separate beds for these married characters but also that while Lucy could make the most of physical comedy while pregnant, none of the characters could actually use the term of 'pregnant' on the air- 'expectant' or even the French enceint were acceptable, though.

In Desi's book (which I loved), he said the priest, minister and rabbi were puzzled by the whole argument.  He said they all said,"What's wrong with saying the word pregnant?  That's what she is."

[proserpina65]

On 8/14/2024 at 1:29 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Queen bedding is only more expensive than full/double if you pay the full retail price. Even then, a set of queen sheets is only $10 more than the full at Target. I find in my neck of the woods that there are always more queen sets marked down on clearance than full ones. Also, it's pretty common in my area for kids to get a full/double bed than a twin, so the stores now get in more juvenile comforter sets than adult ones. 

There was a point in my life where $10 was a lot of money, the difference between putting gas in the car or running so low I wasn't sure if I'd make it to work.  Even now I wouldn't pay the difference.  It's not worth it to me.  And no kid I know has a double bed; it's all twin beds with my friends' and family's kids.

 

[Bastet]

As a little kid, I thought twin beds only existed on TV; I had a double, as did all my friends whose rooms I'd been in.  I think it was first or second grade when I walked into a classmate's bedroom, saw her twin bed, and realized they existed in real life.

[possibilities]

Al the kids I knew had twin beds. Even my college dorms had twin beds. 

And all the adults had queen size.

I don't htink I've ever seen a king or double in real life.

[Lisa418722]

Growing up, I had a double bed because my bedroom was also the guest room, and we needed the bed when my dad's family visited.  The rooms were small so there was no room for a queen-size bed.  When I bought my condo I did get a queen size bed.  I have slept in a king-size bed on some of my vacations and since I sleep alone that is just too big.  

[Haleth]

We have an antique Jenny Lind bed that my daughter slept in growing up. It is an odd size frame - a double mattress is a wee bit too small and a queen is too big. The frame is so pretty.

When we moved to our new house recently my husband insisted on a fawncy king size Sleep Number bed. Love the size. Hate changing the sheets (you need to be a contortionist). And I think Sleep Number is a monumental waste of good money. 

[Ohiopirate02]

13 hours ago, Bastet said:

As a little kid, I thought twin beds only existed on TV; I had a double, as did all my friends whose rooms I'd been in.  I think it was first or second grade when I walked into a classmate's bedroom, saw her twin bed, and realized they existed in real life.

Those of us who had to share a room with a sibling had a twin bed. Those who's parents could afford a home with enough bedrooms for each of their children had double beds. The double bed did make sleepovers easier as long as you and your childhood friend were able to share a bed which is why I believe parents get their kids double beds. One double bed is cheaper than two twin beds and then you don't have a bed taking up space that only gets used a handful of times a year. 

[crazycatlady58]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

We have an antique Jenny Lind bed that my daughter slept in growing up. It is an odd size frame - a double mattress is a wee bit too small and a queen is too big. The frame is so pretty.

When we moved to our new house recently my husband insisted on a fawncy king size Sleep Number bed. Love the size. Hate changing the sheets (you need to be a contortionist). And I think Sleep Number is a monumental waste of good money. 

I love my sleep number bed. Would not use any other brand unless I did not have a choice. I have a queen size mattress because the double and the queen were the same price so I went with the queen. Being single I really don’t need that large of a bed but it’s nice to have the room.

[Affogato]

8 minutes ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I love my sleep number bed. Would not use any other brand unless I did not have a choice. I have a queen size mattress because the double and the queen were the same price so I went with the queen. Being single I really don’t need that large of a bed but it’s nice to have the room.

Especially when sharing with animals.