MAFS Honeymoon Island: Spinoff Discussion Spot

[Guest]

Are we still talking about Honeymoon Island?

I was pleasantly surprised by Chris to take the high road and choose Jada yet again even as his ego was being stroked by the rivalry. I thought for sure he would cave. Watching him cry over the thought of Jada and his daughter together was very sweet. Hidden depths! Take that producers! Honestly though, I still get douchebag player vibes from him, so I hope he continues to defy my expectations.

Isabella and her man (Connor? aka Sunburnt David, can't remember his real name) act like high school freshman who have never been in a relationship before. Really, she "makes you a better man" because she wakes you up in the middle of the night to force you to put the toilet seat down? Dude, you're 25. That's all you can come up with? This is embarrassing.

For all her bragging about her professional success, Brandin is revealing her true colors as an emotionally stunted control freak with intimacy issues. It's obvious she hasn't evolved psychologically with respect to interpersonal relationships since the cheating incident happened in college. "Stay on your side of the bed and don't touch me when I'm sleeping." Yikes! Even she has to be self-aware enough to realize that, as Jonah pointed out, trying to dictate to your 35-year-old boyfriend when and where he's allowed to hold your hand is juvenile and ridiculous. She's starting to make Ashley look stable. When she was insisting to Dr. Jessica that opening up in a public format wasn't her thing, all I could think was why would you sign up for a reality show whose sole purpose is to turn out as many arranged marriages as quickly and haphazardly as possible? Not to mention publicizing that your ex-boyfriend had sex with another girl in your bed. And, while I would never kiss my relatives or especially my parents on the lips and find it strange, I also recognize that it's reflective of different family dynamics and probably cultural differences as well. I was glad she let her neurotic fixation on that drop by the end of the episode and I also appreciate that she started to see it in a new light after Jonah talked about his mom dying. I think she regretted being so openly repulsed and kind of mocking him about it after hearing what he's been through, which actually showed some rare maturity on her part.

[LuvMyShows]

1 minute ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

I was pleasantly surprised by Chris to take the high road and choose Jada yet again even as his ego was being stroked by the rivalry. I thought for sure he would cave. Watching him cry over the thought of Jada and his daughter together was very sweet. Hidden depths! Take that producers! Honestly though, I still get douchebag player vibes from him, so I hope he continues to defy my expectations.

Me too.  He also has a body language thing where he says something and consciously affects a pose or gesture that is supposed to be cure or vulnerable.  I'm not sure how to explain it, but it's comparable to how little kids will consciously do an "aren't I cute?" type of pose.

 

1 minute ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

Isabella and her man (Connor? aka Sunburnt David, can't remember his real name) act like high school freshman who have never been in a relationship before. Really, she "makes you a better man" because she wakes you up in the middle of the night to force you to put the toilet seat down? Dude, you're 25. That's all you can come up with? This is embarrassing.

And he thought that was a plus!  There's a saying that the things you thought were cute and endearing at first, are the things that will drive you crazy later.  I would be thinking something more along the lines of 'controlling b---h'.

1 minute ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

... a reality show whose sole purpose is to turn out as many arranged marriages as quickly and haphazardly as possible

I guess I hadn't picked up on this before, but in a timespan of three weeks, the goal is to have the couples be engaged?  WTAF.  Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the experts.  It's hard enough on MAFS, and they have 8 weeks, including time in the real world.  This will be 3 weeks in the lap of luxury, with no day-to-day life issues to deal with, and they think that will form a basis from which to determine whether to spend the rest of your life with someone?  At least on the Bach/ette franchise, with an equally lame luxury-and-not-real-world premise, a relationship unfolds more organically in the process of getting to know someone, and seeing if that person actually is someone you want to be with.  Some hot-and-heavys flame out, and some slow burns ignite at the end.  Here, it's 'I knew you for a day, and now I'm committed'...actually less than a day, since they were also interacting with the other 7 members of the opposite sex during that day.

[princelina]

44 minutes ago, LuvMyShows said:

And he thought that was a plus!  There's a saying that the things you thought were cute and endearing at first, are the things that will drive you crazy later.  I would be thinking something more along the lines of 'controlling b---h'.

I think Sunburnt David (ha!) will be thinking that way pretty soon :D

[ramble]

I’m getting douche bag and fame whore vibes from these folks. I can’t keep any of them straight yet and I doubt I will since my interest has waned to the point I’m not even half-watching most of the time. This is just a weak reality show that can’t seem to find its lane. Is it all about true love or is it trashy sex? It can’t be too much true love with a handful of picks to choose from after 24 hours and then 3 weeks of “honeymoon before the wedding” to figure it out, but it’s not willing to go full trash either. I watch MAFS so my standards obviously aren’t too high but this show is a sad excuse for reality tv. 

[gonecrackers]

10 hours ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

Isabella and her man (Connor? aka Sunburnt David, can't remember his real name) act like high school freshman who have never been in a relationship before. Really, she "makes you a better man" because she wakes you up in the middle of the night to force you to put the toilet seat down? Dude, you're 25. That's all you can come up with? This is embarrassing.

Get ready for loofah gate take 2.

37 minutes ago, ramble said:

I’m getting douche bag and fame whore vibes from these folks. I can’t keep any of them straight yet and I doubt I will since my interest has waned to the point I’m not even half-watching most of the time. This is just a weak reality show that can’t seem to find its lane. Is it all about true love or is it trashy sex? It can’t be too much true love with a handful of picks to choose from after 24 hours and then 3 weeks of “honeymoon before the wedding” to figure it out, but it’s not willing to go full trash either. I watch MAFS so my standards obviously aren’t too high but this show is a sad excuse for reality tv. 

Yeah it's bad.

[Marsh]

10 hours ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

Are we still talking about Honeymoon Island?

Unfortunately yes.  I thought these were the funny moments from this week:

 

1. When Chris said he's not a player.

 

2. The cameras were too much for Brandin, so Dr. Blondie pulled her aside 10 feet to get away from it all and have a private conversation... with microphones and camera men hiding in the bushes.

 

Also I think Brandin is the least attractive girl on the show, both looks and personality.

[princelina]

I was at least interested to meet a woman who found it charming and clever to name a baby girl "Brandin"

[qtpye]

12 hours ago, princelina said:

I was at least interested to meet a woman who found it charming and clever to name a baby girl "Brandin"

Totally agree on both counts. Nothin says ready for marriage like needing your mommy rescue from the big bad reality show you voluntarily signed up for.

[Starlight925]

22 hours ago, princelina said:

I was at least interested to meet a woman who found it charming and clever to name a baby girl "Brandin"

Terrible girl name.  The only thing that would make it better is if she met a "Brandon", and then they could fight over the name.

And yeah, no, I'm not feeling her at all.  She's not an attractive girl, and her personality just pulls her down.  

Jona (another horrible name) is going to get railroaded by her.

[princelina]

13 hours ago, Sterling said:

Terrible girl name.  The only thing that would make it better is if she met a "Brandon", and then they could fight over the name.

And yeah, no, I'm not feeling her at all.  She's not an attractive girl, and her personality just pulls her down.  

Jona (another horrible name) is going to get railroaded by her.

It's hilarious to me that she paired up with a guy who kind of has a girl's name :D

[TwirlyGirly]

On 11/5/2018 at 2:13 PM, Marsh said:

Jamie wasn't physically attracted to him since the beginning.  I don't think that grows over time, it's either there or it's not.

<snip>

I have to disagree here, based on personal experience.

I wasn't physically attracted to the man who ultimately became my daughter's father at all when we first met. He definitely was not my type. 

We worked together, and after we met the first time, we kept accidentally bumping into each other...

Finally, one day about three weeks after we met, we were chatting about something work related, and I noticed his hands. He had beautiful hands. Clean, long-tapered fingers, nice nails (but not like he was getting manicures - they just looked like he took care of them. Unlike a lot of men, unfortunately). 

Anyway - and I couldn't believe it, because if I had to make a list of male body parts that turn me on, hands would be near the bottom of that list - I realized I was getting turned on BY HIS HANDS. 

We dated, and over time I began to become attracted to other parts of his.. physique...and the rest is history.

So yes, one can become physically attracted to someone they weren't physically attracted to when they first met.

 

On 11/6/2018 at 7:51 PM, seacliffsal said:

<snip> ometimes statistics do not represent actual values (and that, gasp, numbers can "lie" based on how they are used). <snip>

 

Yes...I encounter this frequently when I read/hear about people discussing average life span during different eras in human history. For example, if the average life span 150 years ago was 50, that doesn't mean most people died around that age. Average life span is greatly affected by the infant/child mortality rate and the maternal mortality rate, which were both very high until fairly recently (in terms of human history). 150 years ago, chances are if you survived past age five and were male, or were female and never got pregnant/gave birth, you'd live into your 70's or 80's. It was the high infant/child mortality rate combined with the high maternal mortality rate that brought the average life span down, statistically.

On 11/7/2018 at 10:32 PM, ramble said:

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by TwirlyGirly
Tried to get rid of the strike through and really screwed things up!

[TwirlyGirly]

On 11/7/2018 at 10:32 PM, ramble said:

<snip>. This is just a weak reality show that can’t seem to find its lane. Is it all about true love or is it trashy sex? <snip>

First, I apologise for the double post. I had issues with the strike through adding itself and I couldn't get rid of it. In attempting to delete and retype each section, I lost the ability to insert the cursor to reply to the portion of @ramble post I quoted above and in my previous post.

Carrying on...

I have a theory about the purpose of this show. I wonder if the whole point of it is to make people realize "instant chemistry" is a lousy way to choose a partner, and feeling "instant chemistry" is not a good predictor of compatibility (and conversely, NOT feeling "immediate chemistry" is likewise a poor reason to reject someone right away, because you may develop chemistry with someone if your personalities, interests, goals, morals, etc., are compatible).

I'm interested in a lot of things, and one of the things I've been curious about is why, in an age in which people have seemingly unlimited mobility, combined with the fairly recent invention of dating apps, so many people who claim to want serious relationships can't seem to find partners.

What I've discovered is so many people put all their faith in feeling "instant chemistry"; they choose a potential partners based on a photo, then set up a "date" to meet for coffee. That way, if they don't feel that chemistry right away, they can make a quick and painless exit without wasting anymore time. 

I also see people outright rejecting potential partners for really petty reasons; too tall, too short, don't like the way he dressed, doesn't have the "right" job.

I have a couple of friends - people I've known since I was a teenager and we're now middle-aged - just like this. And guess what?

They're still single.

Edited November 10, 2018 by TwirlyGirly

[Starlight925]

5 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

I have a theory about the purpose of this show. I wonder if the whole point of it is to make people realize "instant chemistry" is a lousy way to choose a partner,

What I've discovered is so many people put all their faith in feeling "instant chemistry";

I have a couple of friends - people I've known since I was a teenager and we're now middle-aged - just like this. And guess what?

They're still single.

 

I'm still single, and it's not because I'm looking for "instant chemistry", or anything like that.

It's because the men are too much like the ones on these shows.  Players, cheaters, full of themselves.

The good ones, the Bobby's and the guys like that one who's traveled to South America (can't remember his name, but he seems nice), don't seem to like me.

Same is true for many of my friends.

I can get all the players/cheaters/losers/guys who can't seem to hold a job.....but I can't seem to land a Bobby.

Maybe they don't feel the instant chemistry with me.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Sterling

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Sterling said:

I'm still single, and it's not because I'm looking for "instant chemistry", or anything like that.

It's because the men are too much like the ones on these shows.  Players, cheaters, full of themselves.

The good ones, the Bobby's and the guys like that one who's traveled to South America (can't remember his name, but he seems nice), don't seem to like me.

Same is true for many of my friends.

I can get all the players/cheaters/losers/guys who can't seem to hold a job.....but I can't seem to land a Bobby.

Maybe they don't feel the instant chemistry with me.

 

Guys like Bobby are much rarer and don't get out like the players and cheaters.  It's much easier to meet one of the bad guys because they're out looking for a woman all the time.  Plus the good guys want more than physical chemistry so it might take a while for them to warm up to you as a long term prospect, which means you would need to meet them in an environment where you have some no-pressure, non-romantic contact with them on a regular basis, such as at school or work.  I'm married for decades and I met my husband the "old fashioned way":  Through friends, which I think is probably one of the best ways if not THE best way.  We have all known people who met online and found their soulmate, but I think the odds of that happening are actually higher that way, and astronomical on a show like this.  That Bobby and Danielle met is almost a miracle that I marvel at over and over again.  I don't even think the "experts" should get much credit for that.  They were just damned lucky with them.

P.S.  I didn't have "instant chemistry" with my husband.  We connected as soulmates first, the chemistry came later.  I think people today expect everything to happen too fast, and this show is only heightening that unrealistic expectation.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Yeah No

[Starlight925]

7 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Guys like Bobby are much rarer and don't get out like the players and cheaters.  It's much easier to meet one of the bad guys because they're out looking for a woman all the time.  Plus the good guys want more than physical chemistry so it might take a while for them to warm up to you as a long term prospect, which means you would need to meet them in an environment where you have some no-pressure, non-romantic contact with them on a regular basis, such as at school or work.  

You know, this is all such a good point, and it makes so much sense to me.

In thinking of my own past, all the "Bobby's" that I've dated (which I stupidly let go, in my younger days) were guys I met organically:  school, friends, volunteering.

All the rest of the guys were met online.   So maybe it's that us nice single gals have to find better ways to meet the nice guys.  Hmmm....great food for thought.

Bobby & Danielle never would have met IRL because he had an absolute age ceiling, which we now know Danielle falls above.  But he is falling deeper in love with her by the minute, and I'm one who thinks they'll last forever.

As for this spinoff show, it's a take-off on Bachelor in Paradise, which has had some success.  4 couples from that show are still together (Jade/Tanner, Ashley/Jared, Chris/Krystal, Evan/Carly), 2 of whom have already married & had kids.  And that's all done with just a bunch of bikinis and beer.  I'm guessing the "experts" think they can help along the couples on this show.

[TwirlyGirly]

On 11/10/2018 at 10:58 PM, Sterling said:

I'm still single, and it's not because I'm looking for "instant chemistry", or anything like that. <snip>

Maybe they don't feel the instant chemistry with me.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The men you're meeting have the expectation that feeling "instant chemistry" will determine whether you two are compatible, and it doesn't. 

I see this, but don't know how to fix it.  My daughter is 22 years old, and I've told her unless there are major "red flags" she discovers (such as addiction/indications of possible emotional or physical abuse/etc), she should really commit herself to three dates with someone before deciding to reject them as a potential partner - even IF she doesn't feel any chemistry with that person.

This show really sets these people up for failure, starting with its location; a beach resort in a hot climate, which forces the participants to dress minimally for comfort, exposing as much as their bodies as legally possible. In that type of situation, OF COURSE they're going to notice - and judge each other - based on what to each of them is physical attractiveness, and whether that judgement elicits a response of "instant chemistry". 

Makes me wonder whether they would have paired up the same way had the show been set at a ski resort in the middle of winter, for example, with all of the participants bundled up against the cold...

On 11/11/2018 at 1:28 AM, Yeah No said:

<snip> [T]he good guys want more than physical chemistry so it might take a while for them to warm up to you as a long term prospect, which means you would need to meet them in an environment where you have some no-pressure, non-romantic contact with them on a regular basis, such as at school or work. <snip> 

P.S.  I didn't have "instant chemistry" with my husband.  We connected as soulmates first, the chemistry came later.  I think people today expect everything to happen too fast, and this show is only heightening that unrealistic expectation.

 

Yes, and YES!

I actually think MAFS does do a pretty good job of matching couples, but what the "experts" cannot control is what the individual participants believe about how compatibility works. 

IOW, if you've got someone who absolutely believes in "instant chemistry", and they don't feel that immediately with the person with whom they've been matched, they may shut down right away and simply refuse to get to know the other person and find those aspects of compatibility that formed the basis on which they were matched. We've seen this happen on MAFS; if someone doesn't feel that "instant chemistry", they spend the rest of the time nit-picking every little thing about their spouse that supports their judgement the person chosen for them is not the right person, instead of concentrating their time and effort on discovering why they may really be compatible after all.

Edited November 15, 2018 by TwirlyGirly
Just noticed a spelling error!

[Starlight925]

36 minutes ago, TwirlyGirly said:

Makes me wonder whether they would have paired up the same way had the show been set at a ski resort in the middle of winter, for example, with all of the participants bundled up against the cold...

Ha ha!  Great post in total, but I love this part!

"Bachelor Winter Games" actually did the ski resort "instant chemistry" match-up show, where contestants stayed bundled up.  However, they had more than enough scenes in the all-too-convenient hot tubs, where the girls seemed to have brought 20 bikinis each.  So even at a ski-resort show, these producers seem to find ways to get their clothes off.

As for your 22 year-old daughter, I like your 3-date advice.  Those "Bobby" types, at that age, really are looking to settle down with one woman and make a life.  Bobby isn't the cheating/lying type, and those guys are out there, at her age.  Hope she finds one of them.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Sterling

[call me ishmael]

19 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

I have a theory about the purpose of this show. I wonder if the whole point of it is to make people realize "instant chemistry" is a lousy way to choose a partner, and feeling "instant chemistry" is not a good predictor of compatibility (and conversely, NOT feeling "immediate chemistry" is likewise a poor reason to reject someone right away, because you may develop chemistry with someone if your personalities, interests, goals, morals, etc., are compatible).

You are a very generous person.  I think that the purpose of this particular show is to try to cash in on the bachelor spinoffs and see if they can create a short term holiday version of MAFS to make more bucks.  They don't really want to educate anyone.  I mean really, MAFS pretends that it is some sort of "radical social experiment" when arranged marriages are as old as time.  The only thing new about it is that it is on TV, there are commercials, and the "experts" can't claim either to know anything about these people or that they are making marriages to bring family property lines together.  And the whole this is really up to you is just there to cover up for the fact that being picked by "experts" and being thrown in front of cameras is not exactly a good way to figure out if you can have a life together.  If they really wanted to be educational the "experts" would get on TV announce that the premise of the show was wrong and that it really is just a way to sell products and cancel it.  Now that would be something.

Quote

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by call me ishmael
Because I don't know how to get rid of the empty quotation box but I wanted to let people know it shouldn't be there.

[TwirlyGirly]

On 11/11/2018 at 2:17 PM, call me ishmael said:

<snip  MAFS pretends that it is some sort of "radical social experiment" when arranged marriages are as old as time.  The only thing new about it is that it is on TV, there are commercials, and the "experts" can't claim either to know anything about these people or that they are making marriages to bring family property lines together.  And the whole this is really up to you is just there to cover up for the fact that being picked by "experts" and being thrown in front of cameras is not exactly a good way to figure out if you can have a life together. <snip>

 

You know what would be an interesting way to do it?

16 participants; eight men and eight women, selected by the "experts". But then, put each participant in a burqa-like garment, with only their eyes exposed - men in one color, women in another. Give them two or three days (not just ONE day!) to meet each other, talk, and choose their match. The cover up garments are removed when each couple is presented to the "experts". 

Then they have the remaining time - 2 1/2 weeks - to get to know each other better and see whether chemistry develops (if they didn't initially feel chemistry when they were revealed to each other).

THAT would be interesting to watch.

I wonder if the "instant chemistry" aspect were taken out of the equation, would more, or fewer, participants match themselves with the same partners the "experts" selected for them?

Edited November 15, 2018 by TwirlyGirly
Noticed spelling error

[princelina]

On 11/10/2018 at 6:18 PM, TwirlyGirly said:

I'm interested in a lot of things, and one of the things I've been curious about is why, in an age in which people have seemingly unlimited mobility, combined with the fairly recent invention of dating apps, so many people who claim to want serious relationships can't seem to find partners.

What I've discovered is so many people put all their faith in feeling "instant chemistry"; they choose a potential partners based on a photo, then set up a "date" to meet for coffee. That way, if they don't feel that chemistry right away, they can make a quick and painless exit without wasting anymore time. 

I also see people outright rejecting potential partners for really petty reasons; too tall, too short, don't like the way he dressed, doesn't have the "right" job.

I have a couple of friends - people I've known since I was a teenager and we're now middle-aged - just like this. And guess what?

They're still single.

 

I recently saw a documentary about this - they said that in the past people had a not-too-large pool of potential mates (your town, school, church, social organizations, etc) and people would pick one from their group.  With online sites there is a seemingly endless supply of potential partners, and if one doesn't suit for any reason (or even if one does!) you just keep swiping for more.  Which makes it harder to narrow yourself down to one - the larger "supply" is harder to deal with than the limited.  Makes sense to me!

Edited November 13, 2018 by princelina

[Scout Finch]

On 11/10/2018 at 10:28 PM, Yeah No said:

Guys like Bobby are much rarer and don't get out like the players and cheaters.  It's much easier to meet one of the bad guys because they're out looking for a woman all the time.  Plus the good guys want more than physical chemistry so it might take a while for them to warm up to you as a long term prospect, which means you would need to meet them in an environment where you have some no-pressure, non-romantic contact with them on a regular basis, such as at school or work.  I'm married for decades and I met my husband the "old fashioned way":  Through friends, which I think is probably one of the best ways if not THE best way.  We have all known people who met online and found their soulmate, but I think the odds of that happening are actually higher that way, and astronomical on a show like this.  That Bobby and Danielle met is almost a miracle that I marvel at over and over again.  I don't even think the "experts" should get much credit for that.  They were just damned lucky with them.

P.S.  I didn't have "instant chemistry" with my husband.  We connected as soulmates first, the chemistry came later.  I think people today expect everything to happen too fast, and this show is only heightening that unrealistic expectation.

 

1

I'm 55 and still single. I sometimes wonder if I'm too unrealistic because I think that there should be at least a little passion. I haven't really ever been in a long-term committed relationship (and am finally realizing that I might very well be on the spectrum, which actually makes me feel relieved that there could be a logical explanation for why I am the way I am), so I feel very inexperienced to a large extent. I have followed my own rule about going on a few dates with someone before making up my mind and have also become more attracted to someone over time. However, I think back to a perfect example of the main issue I've often had. About 15 years ago I went out several times with someone with whom I clicked with on so many things personality-wise. He even gave me a goofy little toy on our second date, bought me a LoTR action figure for my 40th birthday to add to my collection, and then another time brought me homemade soup when I had bronchitis. But, I never felt attracted to him at ALL physically and was even repulsed by the way he kissed. I know passion fades but at the very least shouldn't I want to kiss the person?! I couldn't seem to put all the other things that were wonderful about him ahead of that. Which is probably why I am still single!

Edited November 13, 2018 by Scout Finch

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, princelina said:

I recently saw a documentary about this - they said that in the past people had a not-too-large pool of potential mates (your town, school, church, social organizations, etc) and people would pick one from their group.  With online sites there is a seemingly endless supply of potential partners, and if one doesn't suit for any reason (or even if one does!) you just keep swiping for more.  Which makes it harder to narrow yourself down to one - the larger "supply" is harder to deal with than the limited.  Makes sense to me!

Haha, that "past" wasn't really too long ago.  Anyone that came of age before the internet had a relatively MUCH smaller pool of potential mates.  As I've said in other posts, I met my husband through friends.  Actually, he was the best friend of the guy my best friend was dating.  You can't get much smaller than that.

I have theorized for years that the reason it becomes harder to settle on "the one" today is because you're constantly presented with potentially "better" partners, so it becomes harder to decide to narrow it down to just one, even if you've dated and liked them.  You keep thinking there may be better out there.  Also, in my time there were a lot fewer people on the planet, so there really WERE a lot fewer choices out there.  Plus distance was not as surmountable as it is now.  When people were at a distance it was way too hard to keep up a relationship with them.

It's also my theory that being presented with more choices doesn't make them BETTER choices.  You're more likely to hit it off with someone that's already been pulled from the herd by being the best friend of your friend's boyfriend than with some random person you swipe online.  All it does to see all those random people is make you more confused and less likely to make a sound decision.  Now, on a show like this one, the people pulling from the herd don't necessarily make the best choices either, but that's another story.

I'd be interested to know where you saw this documentary since it's based on what I've been thinking all along.

[ShaNaeNae]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:04 PM, Sterling said:

Terrible girl name.  The only thing that would make it better is if she met a "Brandon", and then they could fight over the name.

And yeah, no, I'm not feeling her at all.  She's not an attractive girl, and her personality just pulls her down.  

Jona (another horrible name) is going to get railroaded by her.

Her little lisp is driving me crazy.  I don't find her very attractive either.

But the worst is Isabella.  She was proclaiming blondie her soul mate (doing the heart with hands) within 15 minutes of meeting, never mind she never kissed him or discussed anything real life.  I couldn't stand her on Second Chances and hate her even more here.

[princelina]

14 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Haha, that "past" wasn't really too long ago.  Anyone that came of age before the internet had a relatively MUCH smaller pool of potential mates.  As I've said in other posts, I met my husband through friends.  Actually, he was the best friend of the guy my best friend was dating.  You can't get much smaller than that.

I have theorized for years that the reason it becomes harder to settle on "the one" today is because you're constantly presented with potentially "better" partners, so it becomes harder to decide to narrow it down to just one, even if you've dated and liked them.  You keep thinking there may be better out there.  Also, in my time there were a lot fewer people on the planet, so there really WERE a lot fewer choices out there.  Plus distance was not as surmountable as it is now.  When people were at a distance it was way too hard to keep up a relationship with them.

It's also my theory that being presented with more choices doesn't make them BETTER choices.  You're more likely to hit it off with someone that's already been pulled from the herd by being the best friend of your friend's boyfriend than with some random person you swipe online.  All it does to see all those random people is make you more confused and less likely to make a sound decision.  Now, on a show like this one, the people pulling from the herd don't necessarily make the best choices either, but that's another story.

I'd be interested to know where you saw this documentary since it's based on what I've been thinking all along.

Hee hee - you are right that the past wasn't so long ago - I went out with one Match.com person before meeting Mr P @12 years  ago and it's totally different even now!  I believe it was on HBO this year - late summer or fall - and it was definitely mostly about people in their 20s/early 30s.  I'm thankful to be both old and out of the singles scene!

Edited November 13, 2018 by princelina

[endure]

This show,  it's like watching paint dry  ?

[LakeGal]

Isabella really thinks a lot of herself.  The way she talked to Tyler(?) was disgusting.  I wanted him to just walk away from her.  He can definitely do better.  She has shown herself to be a bitch on both MAFS shows.  I doubt that will change in her next relationship.  It is obvious why she is single.  She never once thought of his feelings.  It was all about herself.   

[LuvMyShows]

3 hours ago, LakeGal said:

Isabella really thinks a lot of herself.  The way she talked to Tyler(?) was disgusting.  I wanted him to just walk away from her.  He can definitely do better.  She has shown herself to be a bitch on both MAFS shows.  I doubt that will change in her next relationship.  It is obvious why she is single.  She never once thought of his feelings.  It was all about herself.   

Plus from the few clips we saw of the game/challenge, she wasn't being Communicator of the Year with her directions, or lack thereof.

On 11/11/2018 at 9:18 AM, TwirlyGirly said:

I actually think MAFS does do a pretty good job of matching couples, but what the "experts" cannot control is what the individual participants believe about how compatibility works. 

Well, it's kind of hard to be impressed when Pastor Cal says the following, "Eric and Katie are scientifically a great match because they are both located in the same geographic area and also have similar social circles."  No, that is not scientific, and no that does not make them a great match. 

[Real4real]

Guess what, Isabella!  Your ‘loss’ in the communication game just showed all of us that you are the losingest loser who EVER lost.  Sheesh, take about 1000 seats and get over yourself.  Your claiming that it is all about how you need to work on your communication is total bs—you’re a sore loser, end of story.  Your real loss will be Tyler, who seems like a decent guy.

[qtpye]

On 11/12/2018 at 9:08 PM, princelina said:

I recently saw a documentary about this - they said that in the past people had a not-too-large pool of potential mates (your town, school, church, social organizations, etc) and people would pick one from their group.  With online sites there is a seemingly endless supply of potential partners, and if one doesn't suit for any reason (or even if one does!) you just keep swiping for more.  Which makes it harder to narrow yourself down to one - the larger "supply" is harder to deal with than the limited.  Makes sense to me!

 

On 11/13/2018 at 2:11 AM, Yeah No said:

Haha, that "past" wasn't really too long ago.  Anyone that came of age before the internet had a relatively MUCH smaller pool of potential mates.  As I've said in other posts, I met my husband through friends.  Actually, he was the best friend of the guy my best friend was dating.  You can't get much smaller than that.

I have theorized for years that the reason it becomes harder to settle on "the one" today is because you're constantly presented with potentially "better" partners, so it becomes harder to decide to narrow it down to just one, even if you've dated and liked them.  You keep thinking there may be better out there.  Also, in my time there were a lot fewer people on the planet, so there really WERE a lot fewer choices out there.  Plus distance was not as surmountable as it is now.  When people were at a distance it was way too hard to keep up a relationship with them.

It's also my theory that being presented with more choices doesn't make them BETTER choices.  You're more likely to hit it off with someone that's already been pulled from the herd by being the best friend of your friend's boyfriend than with some random person you swipe online.  All it does to see all those random people is make you more confused and less likely to make a sound decision.  Now, on a show like this one, the people pulling from the herd don't necessarily make the best choices either, but that's another story.

I'd be interested to know where you saw this documentary since it's based on what I've been thinking all along.

I am in the same boat and I think we must have watched the same documentary. Before I met my husband about 12 years ago, I too signed up on match.com with a lot of trepidation. There still existed a stigma to online dating and it was considered a bit of a desperate move. Well, at first I felt like the Belle of the Ball. My one very bad pixilated online picture was receiving some good attention. My hopes were dashed as many of the men who were approaching me turned out to be duds or were approaching about 10 other girls at the same time and were not really that serious. It was like they always just wanted to move on to the next shiny new object. Luckily, I met my now husband through conventional methods (introduced by friends) and am happy to be out of the dating game just before things started to go crazy.

1 hour ago, LuvMyShows said:

Plus from the few clips we saw of the game/challenge, she wasn't being Communicator of the Year with her directions, or lack thereof.

Well, it's kind of hard to be impressed when Pastor Cal says the following, "Eric and Katie are scientifically a great match because they are both located in the same geographic area and also have similar social circles."  No, that is not scientific, and no that does not make them a great match. 

He might as well of said, "Eric and Katie are scientifically a great match because they both enjoy breathing oxygen and live on the planet earth."

[Starlight925]

My opinion on Isabella is that she's a gaslighter at the least; she has BPD or NPD at the most.

Whatever guy she dates will always find himself on eggshells, as she shoots at his feet (a la Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas").

What, you don't knoooooow my favorite color?????  You didn't pick up the looooooofah???????  You didn't pay exact specific attention to me during this blindfolded gaaaaaame?

Even though all the other couples, those who came in last, were laughing about it.

Isabella will turn the happiest occasion into a time of fear.

Last week, it came out that Tyler is right-wing, while Isabella is liberal.  OK, cool, differences, whatever.  But the way she told him she'd be happy to "enlighten him" rubbed me the wrong way.  Such a holier-than-thou statement.

 

Here's an article from today's Daily Mail about Narcissism:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6389551/Are-dating-narcissist.html

and some quotes from the article:

"Narcissists are hugely insecure and react on a hairtrigger to things that average adults simply don’t get upset about. Their over-sensitivity is extreme. "

"They will push people’s boundaries without hesitation and go for whatever they can get away with, while their real agenda remains cloaked in charm, flattery and feigned care. "

"They argue like a five-year-old"

Edited November 14, 2018 by Sterling

[qtpye]

45 minutes ago, Sterling said:

My opinion on Isabella is that she's a gaslighter at the least; she has BPD or NPD at the most.

Whatever guy she dates will always find himself on eggshells, as she shoots at his feet (a la Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas").

What, you don't knoooooow my favorite color?????  You didn't pick up the looooooofah???????  You didn't pay exact specific attention to me during this blindfolded gaaaaaame?

Even though all the other couples, those who came in last, were laughing about it.

Isabella will turn the happiest occasion into a time of fear.

Last week, it came out that Tyler is right-wing, while Isabella is liberal.  OK, cool, differences, whatever.  But the way she told him she'd be happy to "enlighten him" rubbed me the wrong way.  Such a holier-than-thou statement.

 

Here's an article from today's Daily Mail about Narcissism:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6389551/Are-dating-narcissist.html

and some quotes from the article:

"Narcissists are hugely insecure and react on a hairtrigger to things that average adults simply don’t get upset about. Their over-sensitivity is extreme. "

"They will push people’s boundaries without hesitation and go for whatever they can get away with, while their real agenda remains cloaked in charm, flattery and feigned care. "

"They argue like a five-year-old"

I get the feeling that Issabella has been told how gorgeous she is her whole life and is very hard on the men that date her if they don't please her in every possible way. She probably thinks that if a guy does not jump to her bidding should be kicked to the curb because there are a million other guys out there who would love to be with her. The sad thing is she is still less annoying than Brandin.

[gonecrackers]

Isabella said she "needs her space", but after Loofagate & the "listen to me no arguing because I'm always right" argument I think Isabella will have a lot of "space" in her life.

I could've done without Chris' music audition.

This show is mostly background noise.

[Almost 3000]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:18 PM, TwirlyGirly said:

I have a theory about the purpose of this show. I wonder if the whole point of it is to make people realize "instant chemistry" is a lousy way to choose a partner, and feeling "instant chemistry" is not a good predictor of compatibility (and conversely, NOT feeling "immediate chemistry" is likewise a poor reason to reject someone right away, because you may develop chemistry with someone if your personalities, interests, goals, morals, etc., are compatible).

I have a theory that they had so many people they had already interviewed that they built a show around existing resources that cost them next to nothing.

[Starlight925]

1 hour ago, gonecrackers said:

I could've done without Chris' music audition.

Ugh, me too.

We get it, you came on the show to let the world hear your "amazing" song, and your "amazing" voice.
Poor Jada.  Seems like a nice girl.  She's just fluff to him.  He just needed someone to sing to, to swoon to his music.

[ChristmasJones]

I found it really interesting to see Isabella re-enact almost the exact same dynamic on both this show and the previous one. That was really fascinating.  Two different guys, two totally different topics/settings, and yet she reacted almost identically in each.  Based on these two scenes, the theme seems to be that if the man does not respond to her in the exact way she expects him to, this really sets her off and she is completely unwilling/unable to move past it.  She isn't willing to listen to the guy's actual response to her complaint. It would be nearly impossible to communicate successfully with someone like that.

[Jack Sampson]

On 11/10/2018 at 7:58 PM, Sterling said:

I'm still single, and it's not because I'm looking for "instant chemistry", or anything like that.

It's because the men are too much like the ones on these shows.  Players, cheaters, full of themselves.

The good ones, the Bobby's and the guys like that one who's traveled to South America (can't remember his name, but he seems nice), don't seem to like me.

Same is true for many of my friends.

I can get all the players/cheaters/losers/guys who can't seem to hold a job.....but I can't seem to land a Bobby.

Maybe they don't feel the instant chemistry with me.

 

On 11/11/2018 at 6:05 AM, Sterling said:

You know, this is all such a good point, and it makes so much sense to me.

In thinking of my own past, all the "Bobby's" that I've dated (which I stupidly let go, in my younger days) were guys I met organically:  school, friends, volunteering.

 

So you rejected plenty of Bobbys and now that you're older, they aren't interested?  Sounds like the lesson is to prepare yourself for quality men early in life rather than exclusively having fun with stereotypical bad boys.  As I told my cousin in a similar position - check your friendzone, plenty of men there are willing to start a family.  Her response, "They don't excite me."  Sad.

 

 

On 11/11/2018 at 6:18 AM, TwirlyGirly said:

My daughter is 22 years old, and I've told her unless there are major "red flags" she discovers (such as addiction/indications of possible emotional or physical abuse/etc), she should really commit herself to three dates with someone before deciding to reject them as a potential partner - even IF she doesn't feel any chemistry with that person.

I would further tell her to make the remaining dates things that she plans and pays for, otherwise she's just wasting some dude's time and money.

 

On to the show.  I feel like this show is an answer to a common suggestion over the last several years.  People here thought it was a good idea to have potential partners meet to see if there's any chemistry before trying to pair up.  Clearly that doesn't work either.

The problem with this show is that so few of the people signing up are sincere about wanting marriage...or just sincere about anything.  The experts should easily be able to see through that but they either can't or choose not to.  Perhaps they have a blind spot because to them being an completely self-involved BS artist is the natural order of things.

 

9 hours ago, qtpye said:

I get the feeling that Issabella has been told how gorgeous she is her whole life and is very hard on the men that date her if they don't please her in every possible way. She probably thinks that if a guy does not jump to her bidding should be kicked to the curb because there are a million other guys out there who would love to be with her. The sad thing is she is still less annoying than Brandin.

She won't hear it from me.  Girl needs the right makeup and camera angles to look presentable.  She's thin at least.  I didn't watch the second chance show, did she sleep with David?  She said they lived together.

[TwirlyGirly]

On 11/12/2018 at 9:08 PM, princelina said:

I recently saw a documentary about this - they said that in the past people had a not-too-large pool of potential mates (your town, school, church, social organizations, etc) and people would pick one from their group.  <snip>

 

 

On 11/13/2018 at 2:11 AM, Yeah No said:

<snip>

I'd be interested to know where you saw this documentary since it's based on what I've been thinking all along.

 

On 11/13/2018 at 4:30 PM, princelina said:

 <snip> I believe it was on HBO this year - late summer or fall - and it was definitely mostly about people in their 20s/early 30s.  I'm thankful to be both old and out of the singles scene!

 

Found it! HBO documentary called "Swiped: Hooking Up in the Digital Age."

It's still available On Demand and presumably, on the HBO app.

Forbes published an article about the documentary; New HBO Documentary Explores Hooking Up In The Age of Online Dating.

I haven't viewed the documentary yet, but something in the Forbes article jumped out at me:

"The documentary focuses on the teens and twentysomethings who discuss, in intimate detail, their experiences with online dating, the only type of dating many have ever known. "

It reminded me of a conversation I had with my daughter, who's now 22 years old, back when she was in high school. I asked her something about whether any of her friends were "dating", and she looked at me like I was speaking a different language. So I explained to her I meant "Two people who may be interested in each other romantically, and one asks the other if they'd like to join them in going out to eat, or a movie, or some other activity in which they have the opportunity to spend time alone with them to talk and get to know each other, to see if there is any potential there for a relationship." Again with the "Are you speaking English or some other language entirely here, Mom?" look. 

So yeah, I think the whole concept of dating as a way to see if you're compatible with someone is a completely foreign concept to the younger generation; they may expect to proceed from "pick a picture" directly to "relationship" (which then can ONLY be based on both parties immediately feeling that elusive "chemistry") - without that necessary intermediary step of getting to know each other to see if you have similar tastes/life goals/moral outlook/etc.. 

Now I realize high school relationships are - or should be - a lot more casual than the relationships we engage in during our 20's and beyond, but my daughter, who is now a college senior, tells me there *still* isn't any real "dating to get to know someone" among any of the people she knows (and she's attending a very small college, so she knows many more of the other students than if she were attending a large university). 

Moving on...

The documentary was written and directed by Nancy Jo Sales, author of a 2015 Vanity Fair article: Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse, which makes for interesting reading!

 

17 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

<snip>

Well, it's kind of hard to be impressed when Pastor Cal says the following, "Eric and Katie are scientifically a great match because they are both located in the same geographic area and also have similar social circles."  No, that is not scientific, and no that does not make them a great match. 

Well, there may be a difference between what the "experts" say on teevee vs what actually goes on behind the scenes during participant selection and the matching of couples.

IIRC, it was either stated on the original MAFS, or in an article I may have read about the program, participants are given a bevy of psychological/personality tests prior to selection, the results of which are used in the selection/matching process.

If this is true, then Pastor Cal's statement may have just been based on two criteria he was able to recall "off the cuff," as opposed to being the totality of the criteria/traits used that led to them being matched.

Edited November 15, 2018 by TwirlyGirly
Added anecdotal experience

[qtpye]

8 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

 

So you rejected plenty of Bobbys and now that you're older, they aren't interested?  Sounds like the lesson is to prepare yourself for quality men early in life rather than exclusively having fun with stereotypical bad boys.  As I told my cousin in a similar position - check your friendzone, plenty of men there are willing to start a family.  Her response, "They don't excite me."  Sad.

 

 

I would further tell her to make the remaining dates things that she plans and pays for, otherwise she's just wasting some dude's time and money.

 

On to the show.  I feel like this show is an answer to a common suggestion over the last several years.  People here thought it was a good idea to have potential partners meet to see if there's any chemistry before trying to pair up.  Clearly that doesn't work either.

The problem with this show is that so few of the people signing up are sincere about wanting marriage...or just sincere about anything.  The experts should easily be able to see through that but they either can't or choose not to.  Perhaps they have a blind spot because to them being an completely self-involved BS artist is the natural order of things.

 

She won't hear it from me.  Girl needs the right makeup and camera angles to look presentable.  She's thin at least.  I didn't watch the second chance show, did she sleep with David?  She said they lived together.

Jack Sampson, first I want to say that I have always enjoyed reading your comments. It is really nice to get a male perspective. Actually, all the intelligent commenters on this site is the main reason I can get through all these stupid type of shows. 

I am a woman of color and Isabella would get a lot of attention and leeway from the men in my community. However, this might be a moot point since she seems to like only blonde/red headed white men.

I really don’t know why so many women waste time with “bad boys”. Maybe some women are programmed to associate cruelty with strong masculinity and kindness with weakness? If it this is true, then I feel sorry for these women as they are in for a world of hurt. Bad boys were never my thing so I can only speculate.

[Jack Sampson]

6 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I am a woman of color and Isabella would get a lot of attention and leeway from the men in my community. However, this might be a moot point since she seems to like only blonde/red headed white men.

I'll take your word for it.  Dudes I know wouldn't make it through the first scowl or meaningless argument.  In fact, those are called "sh!t tests", and Tyler has failed every one.  She's looking for a firm stance and Tyler's giving her a weak, almost apologetic, response.  Admittedly, it's hard to handle one of those arguments on camera without looking like a complete dick but that's exactly what's needed.  Handled properly, Tyler would find himself in bed rather than staring at a slammed door.

 

16 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I really don’t know why so many women waste time with “bad boys”. Maybe some women are programmed to associate cruelty with strong masculinity and kindness with weakness? If it this is true, then I feel sorry for these women as they are in for a world of hurt. Bad boys were never my thing so I can only speculate.

I think that's it exactly.

I try to find a balance but I have to admit that a little cruelty = more sex.  Ultimately, a fisherman goes with the bait that works.  Maybe I'm the flip side and need to date nicer women...

[qtpye]

1 minute ago, Jack Sampson said:

I'll take your word for it.  Dudes I know wouldn't make it through the first scowl or meaningless argument.  In fact, those are called "sh!t tests", and Tyler has failed every one.  She's looking for a firm stance and Tyler's giving her a weak, almost apologetic, response.  Admittedly, it's hard to handle one of those arguments on camera without looking like a complete dick but that's exactly what's needed.  Handled properly, Tyler would find himself in bed rather than staring at a slammed door.

 

I think that's it exactly.

I try to find a balance but I have to admit that a little cruelty = more sex.  Ultimately, a fisherman goes with the bait that works.  Maybe I'm the flip side and need to date nicer women...

You might be right. Perhaps, Isabella blows up about stupid little things because she wants a man to push back because that what she equates with strength. Maybe this behavior is her idiot version of the strength test or she just could be someone who loves messy drama. In both circumstances, I would suggest Tyler run fast and far away from her.

  I thought the conundrum that most men faced was they like a woman who is attractive, classy, and slightly demure in public but an absolute wildcat in bed. Some men with Virgin/Whore complexes can never have sexual thoughts about the women who gave birth to their children (think Elvis). Though I guess like women, there are some men that are attracted to bitches or trainwrecks because these women will always "need them". I actually know a guy like that.  Lovely, kind, and intelligent women are interested in him all the time and the idiot always picks the stupidest nastiest woman on the planet...his funeral.

[Crazy Bird Lady]

11 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

So you rejected plenty of Bobbys and now that you're older, they aren't interested?  Sounds like the lesson is to prepare yourself for quality men early in life rather than exclusively having fun with stereotypical bad boys.  As I told my cousin in a similar position - check your friendzone, plenty of men there are willing to start a family.  Her response, "They don't excite me."  Sad.

The problem with this show is that so few of the people signing up are sincere about wanting marriage...or just sincere about anything.  The experts should easily be able to see through that but they either can't or choose not to.  Perhaps they have a blind spot because to them being an completely self-involved BS artist is the natural order of things.

That, or they choose "completely self-involved BS artists" (who are also very attractive) because that's what creates the drama they need for the show to be a successful money-maker!

11 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

Girl needs the right makeup and camera angles to look presentable.  She's thin at least.  I didn't watch the second chance show, did she sleep with David?  She said they lived together.

Yes. She threw a huge bitch fit when Dave knocked down her loofah in the shower and didn't pick it up. Dave was like (shrug): "It's your stupid loofah. I didn't even notice it. You pick it up!!"

I guess David must have passed her "shit test" (as you called it). And he got laid.

[b2H]

2 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

She's looking for a firm stance and Tyler's giving her a weak, almost apologetic, response.  Admittedly, it's hard to handle one of those arguments on camera without looking like a complete dick but that's exactly what's needed.  Handled properly, Tyler would find himself in bed rather than staring at a slammed door.

In my opinion, he's afraid of her.  I don't like her, not a bit, for all the real or perceived issues she is seeing or creating.  In the previews, he makes a statement about going home.  He should, if he didn't, because she's going to be one of those where nothing is ever, ever right.  I don't understand how she can see everyone else working nicely together and she's just so awful to him.  What a perfectly miserable individual she is and she appears to have a history of it as well.  Run, buddy, run!!!!!

[gonecrackers]

FWIW I don't think Tyler could've handled it any way that would've appeased Isabella. She's not 'in love' with him nor was she with David - she just sees a type she likes & goes with that.

And what a joke when she said she 'may choose' someone else & started naming the paired up men, as if they would all just drop who they're with & run toward her as if she's some kind of damn prize. She's really full of herself.

Edited November 15, 2018 by gonecrackers

[TwirlyGirly]

I'm absolutely convinced the participant's contracts either require them to mention "Saint James Club, Morgan Bay" in a specified number of TH's throughout the season, OR they're paid a bonus every time they use the name and it makes it into the final cut.

Or maybe...both!

[call me ishmael]

14 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

On 11/14/2018 at 11:20 AM, LuvMyShows said:

 

Well, there may be a difference between what the "experts" say on teevee vs what actually goes on behind the scenes during participant selection and the matching of couples.

IIRC, it was either stated on the original MAFS, or in an article I may have read about the program, participants are given a bevy of psychological/personality tests prior to selection, the results of which are used in the selection/matching process.

If this is true, then Pastor Cal's statement may have just been based on two criteria he was able to recall "off the cuff," as opposed to being the totality of the criteria/traits used that led to them being matched.

I don’t know.  Maybe viewers’ hope springs eternal but i have never seen any evidence that the “experts” have ANY idea that they know what they were doing.  The first few years the psychologist claimed that he had scientifically proven tests because of course psychology has worked out precisely what draws two people together.  Basically i tend to think that their claims of science have the same truth value as “my dog ate my homework.”  They basically decide which of the couples they think will be more interesting together (or who the producers imply will make for good TV).  And then they put them in a highly artificial environment and hope it pressures them into staying together.  Frankly i think they would be better of having Chris Harrison pick and it isn’t as if that show has a great track record.

[Guest]

Isabella acts like a 10-year-old fighting with their "boyfriend." "We didn't win the game! If you liked me enough, we would've won! We have to break up now!" It's very telling that the other women, despite only being two or three years older than her, perceive her as an overemotional preteen and speak to her as such. Their relative maturity makes them seem and I'm sure feel much older than her.

Shannon did have a point about Brandin (ugh that spelling) and Jona(h?) re: Jona doing everything for Brandin and waiting around for Brandin to show affection a la Danielle and Bobby. As someone who's the Jona in my romantic dynamics, they'll never change. They'll slap an excuse on it to keep you on the hook - not ready for a relationship right now, needing time to warm up, self-destructive habits - but in the end, you wind up hurting yourself bending over backwards desperately waiting for them to throw breadcrumbs. You have unrequited feelings in a fantasy relationship that will never evolve to what you imagine it could be if you just do X. Y, Z. Brandin just wants the power trip of stringing him along and the ego boost.

Kimber, barring a family history of depression or mental illness, was also throwing out major red flags with her hyper-specific kid aversion. "I can't have a kid who's related to me biologically because I can't stand to see a teen version of myself." I hope that's a reference to not wanting her (apparent) daughter to have depression, because otherwise what a self-absorbed, bizarre thing to say. So she refuses to even consider having kids because she's afraid she'll have a girl and the girl will look so much like her that she'll bother her by reminding her of a time when she was unhappy? A+ parenting, doofus. The way she worded that discussion was so oddly phrased, it made it sound like it had nothing to do with hereditary mental illness and more about her being irritated that this hypothetical daughter she refuses to birth would have the nerve to act like her or remind her of her teen years by...growing up and existing? So neurotic and weird. I felt bad for Shannon when Kimber breezily said that it would have been totally cool if Shannon had his own kid because it felt like retroactively punishing him and dangling sour grapes over his head for having the audacity to waste his potential window of fatherhood by not having kids before he met you, despite only knowing you for less than two weeks and having no idea that you didn't want kids AND NEVER FUCKING MEETING YOU, you asshat. So what, he was just supposed to cosmically interpret he would marry someone who didn't want kids and then roll the dice to pick a random previous partner to have kids with?

I'm a cynic, but I hope Chris and Jada stay adorable!

[Guest]

5 hours ago, gonecrackers said:

FWIW I don't think Tyler could've handled it any way that would've appeased Isabella. She's not 'in love' with him nor was she with David - she just sees a type she likes & goes with that.

And what a joke when she said she 'may choose' someone else & started naming the paired up men, as if they would all just drop who they're with & run toward her as if she's some kind of damn prize. She's really full of herself.

I think Isabella enjoys picking average looking guys who are pretty bland. They are eager to fawn all over her because she's the most conventionally attractive woman to ever give them the time of day and easily pushed around because 1) they want sex and 2) they have no personality. Then, at the tiniest perceived infraction in her eyes (favorite color??? What are we, 12?) she obsessively spins it into a metaphor for how their relationship must be doomed to fail to create an exit when she gets bored with the infatuation stage. In my opinion, she really gets off on berating her man's inadequacies to feed her own delusion of her own superiority or apparent universal desirability. She destroys every relationship to prove to herself that no man is good enough for her. Plus, petty fights like that actually make excellent sympathy grabbers when she sets her sights on her next flavor of the month. "I just wanted him to know my favorite color! I just wanted him to communicate better! I just wanted him to pick up the loofah!" Which, naturally, makes her look like the beleaguered saint ignored and taken for granted by her douchebag exes.

[LuvMyShows]

7 hours ago, gonecrackers said:

And what a joke when she said she 'may choose' someone else & started naming the paired up men, as if they would all just drop who they're with & run toward her as if she's some kind of damn prize. She's really full of herself.

I was so disgusted by Isabella saying that.

2 hours ago, SnarkEnthusiast said:

I think Isabella enjoys picking average looking guys who are pretty bland. They are eager to fawn all over her because she's the most conventionally attractive woman to ever give them the time of day and easily pushed around because 1) they want sex and 2) they have no personality. Then, at the tiniest perceived infraction in her eyes (favorite color??? What are we, 12?) she obsessively spins it into a metaphor for how their relationship must be doomed to fail to create an exit when she gets bored with the infatuation stage. In my opinion, she really gets off on berating her man's inadequacies to feed her own delusion of her own superiority or apparent universal desirability. She destroys every relationship to prove to herself that no man is good enough for her. Plus, petty fights like that actually make excellent sympathy grabbers when she sets her sights on her next flavor of the month. "I just wanted him to know my favorite color! I just wanted him to communicate better! I just wanted him to pick up the loofah!" Which, naturally, makes her look like the beleaguered saint ignored and taken for granted by her douchebag exes.

Excellent analysis!!!

[roguery]

And now for some armchair psychology:

”BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER. People with borderline personality disorder are unstable in several areas, including interpersonal relationships, behavior, mood, and self-image. Abrupt and extreme mood changes, stormy interpersonal relationships, an unstable and fluctuating self-image, unpredictable and self-destructive actions characterize the person with borderline personality disorder. These individuals generally have great difficulty with their own sense of identity. They often experience the world in extremes, viewing others as either “all good” or “all bad.” A person with borderline personality may form an intense personal attachment with someone only to quickly dissolve it over a perceived slight...Impulsive actions, chronic feelings of boredom or emptiness, and bouts of intense inappropriate anger are other traits of this disorder, which is more common among females.”

Whom does this remind you of?

[Crazy Bird Lady]

On 11/16/2018 at 1:26 AM, roguery said:

And now for some armchair psychology:

”BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER. People with borderline personality disorder are unstable in several areas, including interpersonal relationships, behavior, mood, and self-image. Abrupt and extreme mood changes, stormy interpersonal relationships, an unstable and fluctuating self-image, unpredictable and self-destructive actions characterize the person with borderline personality disorder. These individuals generally have great difficulty with their own sense of identity. They often experience the world in extremes, viewing others as either “all good” or “all bad.” A person with borderline personality may form an intense personal attachment with someone only to quickly dissolve it over a perceived slight...Impulsive actions, chronic feelings of boredom or emptiness, and bouts of intense inappropriate anger are other traits of this disorder, which is more common among females.”

Whom does this remind you of?

My sister-in-law. But you left something out. She was very, very much a "Daddy's girl" (although she fought with him). Growing up, she was extremely manipulative and her parents always favored her in everything. (By the way, she has been professionally diagnosed with this disorder, and it fits.)

...Back to Isabella. If I recall from her "loofah girl" times --I think Isabella was very close with her father, but didn't take his advice.

BPD personalities often attack people they feel close to, and they really "go off on them," they "push buttons," hitting below the belt and generally saying things that can never be unsaid.

Afterward, they won't apologize. At best they may act like nothing ever happened --and (in that case) if the other person dares to still be upset after such 'generous forgiveness," it'll be more ridiculous drama and melodramatic tears and accusations and condemnations and badmouthing the "heartless betrayer" to anyone and everyone. (The other person is being "horrible" to them, never really cared about them in the first place, etc. etc. ad nauseum.) They play that victim role so convincingly that they always find people to believe them.  

Edited November 21, 2018 by Crazy Bird Lady