Season 2 Discussion

[configdotsys]

1 minute ago, Scarlett45 said:

How I saw it was that Rachel was being a wee bit self righteous of Jon living a non monogamous lifestyle when she (very recently) became pregnant by a stranger via a one night stand. Jon doesn’t have any children.....Pot meet Kettle

To me there is a big difference between a single person wanting to have Safe/Consentual sex with multiple people and adultery. I could see Rachel being uncomfortable if Jon was married/committed before and cheated and showed no remorse (like “oh yeah whatever”) but choosing not to be commited at all?? I’m confused as to what he did that was objectionable......you could say he could’ve kept his FWB to single ladies (and not married women in open relationships), which I get, but again it was the self righteous attitude that went with it I found odd.

I definitely agree that she was pretty self-righteous during that conversation. For sure. And considering her own past, you're right that it's a pot/kettle thing.

1 minute ago, Scarlett45 said:

I don’t think Jon was having “open relationships” I think he was dating/having sex with several people at once, some of them had primary partners (as in married) who had open relationships. 

Got it! I knew there was something I was missing there. I kept trying to piece together what he was saying and just could not get it to make sense to me.

[Granny58]

22 hours ago, Mothra said:

Look!  A goat!

I GET IT NOW.  THAT'S WHY JESSE SAID THAT!!!!  It's all become clear.  He was referencing the plot outline.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by Granny58

[alegtostandon]

3 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

East Valley resident here.  I feel your pain.

...and I am west valley (Surprise) and somehow always end up on 10 going east! lol!

I took Jon as saying he, at a certain point in his life, was willing to screw whoever, regardless of marital or relationship status of the other person. From what I have gathered from his mum, sister and friends, he has never had a committed relationship. I took him as saying at the time, he saw nothing wrong with it.  I have known a lot of people who would only have sex with a married person because of not wanting any chance of a commitment.

[KateHearts]

On 9/19/2018 at 6:52 PM, Mainer said:

That is insane to me! Almost can’t tell it’s them, WAAAYYYYY prettier before all the plastic surgery... omg!!

 

oh and D’Arcy seems to have a thing for long haired men

I think Darcy looks a lot like she does now in the side shots. And the same baby voice and attempts to look cute and innocent with the wide-eyed blinks. The still shots are a lot more attractive; yet when she is on video and talks, she's very much the same as now.

[LocalGovt]

On 9/19/2018 at 1:52 PM, monagatuna said:

Fixed that for you!

Thank you!

[iwasish]

30 minutes ago, alegtostandon said:

...and I am west valley (Surprise) and somehow always end up on 10 going east! lol!

I took Jon as saying he, at a certain point in his life, was willing to screw whoever, regardless of marital or relationship status of the other person. From what I have gathered from his mum, sister and friends, he has never had a committed relationship. I took him as saying at the time, he saw nothing wrong with it.  I have known a lot of people who would only have sex with a married person because of not wanting any chance of a commitment.

Could be that one night with Jon was enough to convince most of the women that once was enough.

[PityFree]

9 hours ago, eatsleep said:

Even tho I hate that she's trying to push that dad stuff on him, it was really cute when Lucy said "dada." I wonder if she had been coached tho.

 I read somewhere that the “da” sound is one of the easiest for children to say when they first start  babbling.  That’s why very very often babies say dada before they say mama.  Personally I doubt very much she was actually saying dada and meaning John. she was just babbling and making sounds in general and “da da” was easy for her to say.

[BradandJanet]

13 hours ago, Mrs. Hanson said:

Lord forgive me but please let it be that and Paul: TAKE IT AS A SIGN!!!!  Go home to the USA, leave Brazil behind as a distant memory.

But do we really want Pole back? Karineey is going to insist on coming too. 

[Stripper Glitter]

On 9/17/2018 at 10:26 AM, eatsleep said:

Did anyone notice how Rachel was dressed going to the airport? Those cuffed dad jeans w/ ankle boots and a sweatshirt? What in the entire fuck? Why wouldn't she want his last impression of her to be jaw dropping?

Her general appearance from the get-go has struck me as a woman who's comfortable with the guy and doesn't feel the need to impress. This coupled with Lucy IMO resembling Jon makes me think they've spent time together before the show.... like 9 months before Lucy was born....

[Quof]

When a married woman gives birth, the husband is legally presumed to be the father. 

[Baltimore Betty]

11 hours ago, alegtostandon said:

I don't know why these people feel they need to look to other countries for 'true love'.

Sorry, I just lost my train of thought but I will say this, plucking someone out of some poverty stricken country and having them so grateful to get a chance to go to the US and all they have to do is say "I love you" is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. 

[iwasish]

1 hour ago, Baltimore Betty said:

Sorry, I just lost my train of thought but I will say this, plucking someone out of some poverty stricken country and having them so grateful to get a chance to go to the US and all they have to do is say "I love you" is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Poor Tarek can’t even get an “I love you” or some ass.

 

I noticed Rachel was a bit cool to Jon when they went out to dinner after the open relationships reveal. He gave her flowers from the table and she gave him the fisheye. Then while she was attempting to discuss things he turned his attention to Lucy, feeding and cooing  at her. Reminded me of the way Azan used May as a human shield against Nicole’s groping. Rachel may regret pushing the bond between Jon and Lucy so quickly.

There have been moments when Rachel was pressing Jon on a point or voicing her opinion and Jon didnt seem to like it and he gave her that cold,emotionless and vacant stare . There is something creepy about him.

Edited September 21, 2018 by iwasish

[sasha206]

14 hours ago, Kangatush said:

That's not really fair.  I had what I shall call a colorful past that perhaps included dabbling with a few attached people.  What people decided to do in their relationships had nothing to do with me, or my ability to be monogamous.  

True, but in this case, she's engaged to someone who has a past that includes violence as well.  His colorful past is likely much more colorful than yours.  In addition, he may have more of a tendency to stray than a female (I'm assuming you are) with a colorful past.  I'm not saying someone's colorful past is reason to put them aside and expect infidelity, but if those values don't mesh with your own, then you should be questioning the activity.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by sasha206

[iwasish]

22 minutes ago, sasha206 said:

True, but in this case, she's engaged to someone who has a past that includes violence as well.  His colorful past is likely much more colorful than yours.  In addition, he may have more of a tendency to stray than a female (I'm assuming you are) with a colorful past.  I'm not saying someone's colorful past is reason to put them aside and expect infidelity, but if those values don't mesh with your own, then you should be questioning the activity.  

I’m less bothered by the open relationships or the one night stands. My guess would be that he’s a hard partier and many of the women he slept with were probably as drunk as Jon at closing time. 

Its the number of fights that he admits to which is probably way higher. He says he’s changed, but I wonder if it’s just while he’s been chatting with Rachel. If that relationship ends, will he go back to his drinking and fighting? His friends seem skeptical that he’s changed,,,, Rachel needs to tread very carefully with this guy. 

[PamelaMaeSnap]

On 9/17/2018 at 2:54 AM, millennium said:

I started to become very annoyed by Rachel's tic-like wiping away of every tear with her thumbs and fingers.

THANK YOU ... so glad it wasn't just me.

[Mothra]

3 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:

Sorry, I just lost my train of thought but I will say this, plucking someone out of some poverty stricken country and having them so grateful to get a chance to go to the US and all they have to do is say "I love you" is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. 

There is also an element of feeling like there will be guaranteed gratitude sex involved.  Judging from the photos these guys all send each other, sex is certainly implied in their overtly sexual poses.  I have a feeling that while some of the fianceteers seem like they should be able to find love closer to home, either they are shooting way above their pay grade, or they are like those incel guys, whose real-life personalities mitigate against any woman wanting to spend time with them.  And that's not counting all the times we've heard about how disgustingly independent American women are!  I think the fact that the vast majority of female foreigners we see are Asian indicates a desire for stereotypically submissive female behavior.  Another reason no American woman will give them a buggy ride.

[monagatuna]

6 minutes ago, Mothra said:

There is also an element of feeling like there will be guaranteed gratitude sex involved.  Judging from the photos these guys all send each other, sex is certainly implied in their overtly sexual poses.  I have a feeling that while some of the fianceteers seem like they should be able to find love closer to home, either they are shooting way above their pay grade, or they are like those incel guys, whose real-life personalities mitigate against any woman wanting to spend time with them.  And that's not counting all the times we've heard about how disgustingly independent American women are!  I think the fact that the vast majority of female foreigners we see are Asian indicates a desire for stereotypically submissive female behavior.  Another reason no American woman will give them a buggy ride.

Spot on. This whole phenomenon turns my stomach, and makes me a little mad at myself that I contribute to the viewership of this disaster. Every guy on this particular iteration of this show, aside from Jon, has at least implied that he wants a meek, submissive woman. Previous iterations have given us "I want a Filipino wife because the Philippines doesn't allow divorce, so she can't leave me," etc. Not one of them wants a self-sufficient, self-reliant woman who can take care of herself. They know they don't have the looks, personality, or potential to have a woman want them, so they seek out the woman who needs them. It's one thing to choose to be deferential to your partner; it's quite another to actively seek out women in desperate circumstances and force them to be meek and submissive to you because you hold the power of your wallet, however pathetic that may be, over their heads. I used to date men, and a large proportion of them ached for me to be that way, knowing they were barking up the wrong tree, as I'm the opposite of what they wanted (independent, self-sufficient, outspoken to a fault, and don't want their kids or their last name). Wonder why they never worked out...hmmm...

[gonecrackers]

13 hours ago, PityFree said:

 I read somewhere that the “da” sound is one of the easiest for children to say when they first start  babbling.  That’s why very very often babies say dada before they say mama.  Personally I doubt very much she was actually saying dada and meaning John. she was just babbling and making sounds in general and “da da” was easy for her to say.

One of mine did the 'dada' sound for everything for a while.

2 hours ago, iwasish said:

Poor Tarek can’t even get an “I love you” or some ass.

Next week it looks like Tarek is upset because they haven't had sex therefore he has no proof of her love. Yeah okay, like sex is proof of love; um, not at all. And Tarik has no 'love' he just wants to get laid, &/or make sure she's what he wants before he seals the deal; prick.

16 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I don’t think Jon was having “open relationships” I think he was dating/having sex with several people at once, some of them had primary partners (as in married) who had open relationships. 

Hoping both of them had some testing before they were together...

[Scarlett45]

9 minutes ago, gonecrackers said:

Hoping both of them had some testing before they were together...

Yup. Rachel probably had testing done during her prenatal care (she said that she had been celibate since she conceived Lucy), Jon I don’t know......

[eatsleep]

18 hours ago, Kangatush said:

That's not really fair.  I had what I shall call a colorful past that perhaps included dabbling with a few attached people.  What people decided to do in their relationships had nothing to do with me, or my ability to be monogamous.  

18 hours ago, Kangatush said:

But see, that's the thing.  I'm very much against adultery.  I'd never cheat and I'd never accept cheating in my partner.  But I, and Jon, have never been married.  My point was that I, and Jon, have no culpability in if others commit adultery.  

First point, if you're Christian, you are told that the married partner and the single partner are equally culpable and guilty of the same sin of adultery. I am going to assume both of them were raised w/ at least some degree of Christian influence, so they would both have been told this and possibly still believe this. 

Second point, if you dabbled w/ a married partner, yes, you accepted cheating in a partner. The married person was your partner and you dabbled, so you accepted. Maybe you didn't have strong feeling for that person or the person was just a "sex partner." But that person was still a partner and you accepted that person's cheating ways. Same as Jon might have.

Third point, religion aside, some ppl object to adultery bc it shows a lack of empathy for the partners being cheated on/lied to. And most ppl value empathy.

Fourth point, both Rachel and Jon come from "broken homes" where cheating, lack of commitment, promiscuity, etc could have been big problems. Rachel might have thought she and Jon were equally against it.

 

8 hours ago, Stripper Glitter said:

Her general appearance from the get-go has struck me as a woman who's comfortable with the guy and doesn't feel the need to impress. This coupled with Lucy IMO resembling Jon makes me think they've spent time together before the show.... like 9 months before Lucy was born....

Yeah, she dresses like a woman who has been w/ a guy for 30 yrs and has zero fucks to give at all! But her manner around him suggests ~anything but~ a feeling of security or confidence. 

 

1 hour ago, Mothra said:

I have a feeling that while some of the fianceteers seem like they should be able to find love closer to home, either they are shooting way above their pay grade, or they are like those incel guys, whose real-life personalities mitigate against any woman wanting to spend time with them.  

Hmmmm trying to recall all the foreign SOs. I think Paola is gorg and way above Russ's boring, mousy pay grade. And Kirliam was really pretty. Anyone else? Yes, there were some who were OK but compared to the extreme homeliness of the American half, seemed head & shoulders above (Mohammed and Danielle, Annie and David, etc.) But hmmmmm I think Pole is pretty equal to Karine in the looks dept and so are Tarik and Hazel. Gosh, they must all have really dreadful personalities!

 

1 hour ago, monagatuna said:

Spot on. This whole phenomenon turns my stomach, and makes me a little mad at myself that I contribute to the viewership of this disaster. Every guy on this particular iteration of this show, aside from Jon, has at least implied that he wants a meek, submissive woman. Previous iterations have given us "I want a Filipino wife because the Philippines doesn't allow divorce, so she can't leave me," etc. Not one of them wants a self-sufficient, self-reliant woman who can take care of herself. They know they don't have the looks, personality, or potential to have a woman want them, so they seek out the woman who needs them. It's one thing to choose to be deferential to your partner; it's quite another to actively seek out women in desperate circumstances and force them to be meek and submissive to you because you hold the power of your wallet, however pathetic that may be, over their heads. I used to date men, and a large proportion of them ached for me to be that way, knowing they were barking up the wrong tree, as I'm the opposite of what they wanted (independent, self-sufficient, outspoken to a fault, and don't want their kids or their last name). Wonder why they never worked out...hmmm...

Well, don't feel too badly bc the meek and submissive thing has to last only until the green card arrives (roughly a year). Then the foreign spouse is on equal footing and lording the financial commitment paperwork over the Americans' heads. It has a nice way of balancing out. LOL

[magemaud]

2 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

On 9/17/2018 at 2:54 AM, millennium said:

I started to become very annoyed by Rachel's tic-like wiping away of every tear with her thumbs and fingers.

THANK YOU ... so glad it wasn't just me.

accompanied by a sniffling "It's not faaaaaaaair!" 

Edited September 21, 2018 by magemaud

[StatisticalOutlier]

21 hours ago, Kangatush said:

But see, that's the thing.  I'm very much against adultery.  I'd never cheat and I'd never accept cheating in my partner.  But I, and Jon, have never been married.  My point was that I, and Jon, have no culpability in if others commit adultery.  

It depends on which state you're in.  Several have laws that make adultery a crime.  In New York, for example, "A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse." 

[IvySpice]

Quote

if those values don't mesh with your own, then you should be questioning the activity.  

That's what it comes down to for me. I think Jon having open relationships is the least of the issues Rachel ought to be worried about. But if it is immoral to HER, then it is a big deal. It's a question of values and their values have to match.

[Mothra]

16 minutes ago, IvySpice said:

That's what it comes down to for me. I think Jon having open relationships is the least of the issues Rachel ought to be worried about. But if it is immoral to HER, then it is a big deal. It's a question of values and their values have to match.

Agreed, but nobody seems to remember Jon's touching explanation for why his bad behavior has ended:  "I never had anything to lose before now."

Edited September 21, 2018 by Mothra

[booboopbedoo]

4 hours ago, magemaud said:

accompanied by a sniffling "It's not faaaaaaaair!" 

reminds me of Danielle

[millennium]

9 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

THANK YOU ... so glad it wasn't just me.

Is it just me, or is the exaggerated thumb/finger tear removal method a phenomenon of recent years?   It's on all these shows now but I have never witnessed someone doing it in real life.   It seems like pure histrionics.

[iwasish]

2 minutes ago, millennium said:

Is it just me, or is the exaggerated thumb/finger tear removal method a phenomenon of recent years?   It's on all these shows now but I have never witnessed someone doing it in real life.   It seems like pure histrionics.

Think Casey Anthony.....

[millennium]

I'd rather not.

[Meowwww]

1 hour ago, iwasish said:

Think Casey Anthony.....

Or SisterWives (the tv show).  Constantly picking eye goo out and examining it. 

[Kangatush]

9 hours ago, eatsleep said:

First point, if you're Christian, you are told that the married partner and the single partner are equally culpable and guilty of the same sin of adultery. I am going to assume both of them were raised w/ at least some degree of Christian influence, so they would both have been told this and possibly still believe this. 

Second point, if you dabbled w/ a married partner, yes, you accepted cheating in a partner. The married person was your partner and you dabbled, so you accepted. Maybe you didn't have strong feeling for that person or the person was just a "sex partner." But that person was still a partner and you accepted that person's cheating ways. Same as Jon might have.

Third point, religion aside, some ppl object to adultery bc it shows a lack of empathy for the partners being cheated on/lied to. And most ppl value empathy.

Fourth point, both Rachel and Jon come from "broken homes" where cheating, lack of commitment, promiscuity, etc could have been big problems. Rachel might have thought she and Jon were equally against it.

 

Thanks for your opinion, I respectfully disagree.

 

6 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

It depends on which state you're in.  Several have laws that make adultery a crime.  In New York, for example, "A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse." 

And Jon is in England so US laws do not apply.

[endure]

There is no romance or love between Angela and Michael.

[Mothra]

11 hours ago, millennium said:

Is it just me, or is the exaggerated thumb/finger tear removal method a phenomenon of recent years?   It's on all these shows now but I have never witnessed someone doing it in real life.   It seems like pure histrionics.

And they always have to *look* to see what they've wiped off.  That's what makes it so unattractive for me.  It's like looking at what you've blown out your nose in front of other people, or examining boogers.  I blame the Kardashians.

[Ynicknan]

It’s a mascara thing. They are checking to see if they are ruining their makeup.

[Dobian]

If you mess around with a married person then you are as guilty as they are lol.  You can rationalize all you want about what the law says or the Bible says, morally you are in the same boat they are.  You did a bad thing, doesn't matter if you want to put the blinders on and not own up to it.  It takes two to tango.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Dobian

[AZChristian]

23 minutes ago, Ynicknan said:

It’s a mascara thing. They are checking to see if they are ruining their makeup.

Okay . . . so you wipe your eyes with your bare fingers and find out that you ARE ruining your mascara.  So you have running mascara, dirty fingers, and STILL no tissue.  LOL.  

[Spike]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:16 AM, Kellyee said:

I only live in the US for the free refills too. I don't want Darcy and Jesse to break up because I don't know what else I will do for entertainment.

I could be wrong, but I thought the guy has to sign the birth certificate in order for the woman to put his name on there. I didn't think you could just name someone on an official document like that without a signature.

Ricky giving Melissa's engagement ring to Ximena is so tacky I can barely speak.

Is no free refills an Amsterdam thing or a Europe thing?

[Quof]

29 minutes ago, Spike said:

Is no free refills an Amsterdam thing or a Europe thing?

No, the "free refills" is only an American thing.  People in other parts of the world don't drink nearly as much soda.

[Spike]

6 minutes ago, Quof said:

No, the "free refills" is only an American thing.  People in other parts of the world don't drink nearly as much soda.

Some diner types place refill coffee as well.

[Owwwww ma leg]

59 minutes ago, Spike said:

Is no free refills an Amsterdam thing or a Europe thing?

Also an Australian thing

[seacliffsal]

The refills are also a regional thing.  My nephews (when younger) were SHOCKED when they visited me in California that when they asked for refills I had to pay an additional charge (we put an end to THAT).

[Mainer]

4 hours ago, Mothra said:

16 hours ago, millennium said:

Is it just me, or is the exaggerated thumb/finger tear removal method a phenomenon of recent years?   It's on all these shows now but I have never witnessed someone doing it in real life.   It seems like pure histrionics.

And they always have to *look* to see what they've wiped off.  That's what makes it so unattractive for me.  It's like looking at what you've blown out your nose in front of other people, or examining boogers.  I blame the Kardashians.

Farrah from teen mom does it all the time when she does her fake cry

[athousandclowns]

On September 21, 2018 at 8:35 AM, PamelaMaeSnap said:

THANK YOU ... so glad it wasn't just me.

 

8 minutes ago, Mainer said:

Farrah from teen mom does it all the time when she does her fake cry

I see reality women do it all the time. Don't think Rachael was wearing mascara either. So what the heck was she expecting to see on her fingers? Bugs me too. 

[gingerella]

3 hours ago, Dobian said:

If you mess around with a married person then you are as guilty as they are lol.  You can rationalize all you want about what the law says or the Bible says, morally you are in the same boat they are.  You did a bad thing, doesn't matter if you want to put the blinders on and not own up to it.  It takes two to tango.

Seriously, I cannot imagine how anyone could justify "Oh, it's the married person's fault but since I'M not married I have no culpability in the cheating because I'm not cheating..." I guess people will use whatever convoluted thinking they can muster to justify heinous behavior. If the non-married party doesn't know the other person is in a relationship with someone else, that's entirely different and a decent human being would send the other person packing as soon as they find out. But to know someone is currently in a relationship (and not just being married but also engaged or just in a monogamous dating situation), and then still go forward with that person? I just cant...I think a decent human being wouldn't do that to another person because they would know that they wouldn't like that done to them. Do unto others and all that. You dont need to be a 'religious' person to know the basic rights & wrongs of life, yanno?

[crabbygrrl]

I've been a lurker (and admirer) of this forum for awhile and finally decided to add in my observations about this season's cast of characters, for what they are worth.

• Hazel:  Like Anfisa, she was voted by her high school class as most likely to slip into a coma.  The woman has NO affect, no matter what she is talking about.  Even if Tariq thinks she's a knockout (up for debate, I know) how can he stand her complete lack of personality?
• Angela:  I actually was on her side at first till I learned about the Jerry Springer appearances.  I thought she at least tried to be gracious and respectful at first, but of course it didn't last.  However, I don't have much sympathy with Michael or really with any of the poverty stricken potential "the ones".  They know exactly what they are doing, you only have to look at the seductive poses they post.  They also all seem to have better phones than I do.
• Jon:  Big trouble.  I regret to say I was once involved with a man who I discovered too late had spent 13 years in prison for bashing his fiance's head in (didn't kill her but permanently maimed her --sound familiar?).  Anyway I found out that the story he told most people about why he had been incarcerated was that he stabbed a man in a bar in defense of a woman's honor.  Also sounds familiar.  I think this must be the bully's go-to excuse for horrible behavior.
• The more I read about Darcey, the more I think she is Angela with better education and more money to spend on "enhancing" herself.  What exactly has she done with her life ("in fashion")  Her ex looks like he could be an extra from Hee Haw, if people on Hee Haw were wannabe rappers.. She might not have the accent, but she's a paycheck away from the trailer park.
• Karine:  I think her parents supported the marriage for the sake of the marriage and the fact that Paul would now have some legal/financial responsibility for her.  As soon as the vows were said they all want out.  Paul is a delusional weirdo, but I don't trust or feel sorry for Karine one bit.

Final thought:  I am so tired of hearing in all of the 90 day series about how generous, open hearted, family oriented, caring people the non-Americans are.  It's a put down and it's abused and I don't like it.  You want to send laptops and huge screen TVs to your (lawyer) mom or let your family eat all the food in your house and then act like Americans are just tightfisted jerks. I've dealt with this accusation myself and it infuriates me.

Sorry if I sound too judgmental re. the potential fiance's.  I frankly think they all deserve one an other.  And I speak as someone who (per the above) has made some bad choices romance-wise herself.

[Mothra]

10 minutes ago, crabbygrrl said:

Karine:  I think her parents supported the marriage for the sake of the marriage and the fact that Paul would now have some legal/financial responsibility for her. 

So many posters here--this is not personal--keep saying that Kreeny's parents were in favor of this marriage, and I just don't see it.  What I saw was parents who were suspicious in the first place of Pole because he would make the trip to the backside of Brazil and show up with six lockers full of protective gear, who would "ask for their daughter's hand" by making the universal "fuck" sign (poking his forefinger through the OK sign on his other hand), unable to speak or understand their language, run away when he got upset--literally *run away*--leaving their daughter to the depredations of a robber, make their daughter take all kinds of medical tests, keep their daughter upset and in tears, who were told by their daughter that Pole was verbally abusive to her when they were alone--the father agreed to allow his daughter to marry Pole only after Kreeny whined and begged (because Kreeny does want to go to the US) (as if he could have prevented the marriage anyway) and a mother who can't talk about the marriage without crying, who told her daughter *as the daughter was having a breakdown about whether to go ahead with the wedding or not* she could come back home--these are not parents who "supported the marriage."

[Lily247]

21 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

It depends on which state you're in.  Several have laws that make adultery a crime.  In New York, for example, "A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse." 

Wasnt the father of Lucy married or in the process of a divorce when Lucy was conceived ? Sooo ........ 

[Mainer]

At least we can watch this season knowing there all dumbin there own ways, but the season with that old man that was so jealous I couldn’t even watch he was literally just a child molester I can’t remember his name or hers I literally couldn’t watch, I don’t know how tlc even filmed those two it sickened me   Just remembered Nikki and mark 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Mainer

[crabbygrrl]

When I say Karine's parents were for the marriage, I don't in any way mean happy about it or excited about it, except for the opportunity it might give their daughter for a better life.  But they had chances to strongly voice objections -- for example, when Paul presented them with the details of his criminal record--but they didn't do so, at least not on camera.  It was clear they had doubts but they went along with the whole process -- until right after the wedding, when suddenly Paul is dirt under their feet.  Now of course there is a ton of stuff we aren't shown and I'm not trying to be an advocate of Paul, I just think Karine's family helped make this marriage happen, whether it was something they were enthusiastic about or not.

[Mrs. Hanson]

2 hours ago, crabbygrrl said:

Final thought:  I am so tired of hearing in all of the 90 day series about how generous, open hearted, family oriented, caring people the non-Americans are.  It's a put down and it's abused and I don't like it.

I agree, cause pretty much all of my American relatives are generous, open hearted, family oriented and caring.  We would draw the line at financially supporting a healthy, able bodied person in another country when we all have our own bills to pay.

 

1 hour ago, Mothra said:

So many posters here--this is not personal--keep saying that Kreeny's parents were in favor of this marriage, and I just don't see it.  What I saw was parents who were suspicious in the first place of Pole because he would make the trip to the backside of Brazil and show up with six lockers full of protective gear, who would "ask for their daughter's hand" by making the universal "fuck" sign (poking his forefinger through the OK sign on his other hand), unable to speak or understand their language, run away when he got upset--literally *run away*--leaving their daughter to the depredations of a robber, make their daughter take all kinds of medical tests, keep their daughter upset and in tears, who were told by their daughter that Pole was verbally abusive to her when they were alone--the father agreed to allow his daughter to marry Pole only after Kreeny whined and begged (because Kreeny does want to go to the US) (as if he could have prevented the marriage anyway) and a mother who can't talk about the marriage without crying, who told her daughter *as the daughter was having a breakdown about whether to go ahead with the wedding or not* she could come back home--these are not parents who "supported the marriage."

I agree - the mom crying when she was trying on wedding dresses?  Not tears of joy that id for sure!!!  When Paul was like "My mom will be upset if I get married in Brazil" then turns around and does just that.....ugh.  Just the thought of him touching me give me the creeps.

Per Jesse and Darcy, here is my take of the two of them:

Jesse:  "Let's make lunch"

Darcy: " Okay!  How about ham and cheese?"

Jesse:  "OH MY GOD I HATE HAM!  HOW COULD YOU????"

Darcy: "FINE!  We are DONE!!"

Jesse:  "I am leaving!"

Lather, rinse and repeat.

I also agree with the person upthread who said it is kinda obvious she does not have custody as she is a stage 4 clinger with them.  "Look how tight we are!!!"

Edited September 22, 2018 by Mrs. Hanson

[Baltimore Betty]

I am confused about Paul's comments about what he gave up in order to marry a woman that will actually let him touch her...why did he give up his parents, Christmas, New Years, etc...? I don't remember Karine telling Paul he had to give up his family and such. 

That is such a played out theme, "I gave up (insert what or whoever) for you" what did you think would happen when you have no money because you  spent it all on going to a foreign country to play house with someone you chatted with for a bit on line.  When Paul's mother told him he was not ready to get married I am pretty sure she meant being financially ready but Paul heard something different I am sure.  

Was it Karine and Paul's plan to live in Brazil permantly?