S39: Dan Spilo

[ProfCrash]

And there was plenty of touchy video aired. It is not normal to stroke anyones calf the way Dan was stroking Missy’s at the merge feast. Never mind the varIous conversations that the women had commenting about his touching and how weird it was. Or the many times Kellee told Dan to stop and Dan ignored her.

[Kenzie]

2 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

It is not normal...

It was also not normal, presumptuous and creepy when he set his head on her hip/groin area and then asked if it was okay. 

[phlebas]

14 hours ago, Kenzie said:

It was also not normal, presumptuous and creepy when he set his head on her hip/groin area and then asked if it was okay. 

Ugh, I forgot about that one.

So, if you think Dan is innocent, what would you need to see to change your mind?

I'm gonna play the odds and believe Kellee + everyone else + the videos. 

[DEL901]

5 hours ago, phlebas said:

Ugh, I forgot about that one.

So, if you think Dan is innocent, what would you need to see to change your mind?

I'm gonna play the odds and believe Kellee + everyone else + the videos. 

And the fact that tptb might be ratings obsessed a**holes who wouldn’t hesitate to manipulate the viewer, but I can’t believe even they would say/imply what they did about Dan if it wasn’t true.    The blowback would have too much downside potential if he went after them for slander.  He is an industry insider.   If he was innocent, he wouldn’t hesitate to go after them, regardless of any contract he signed before going on the show.  

[phlebas]

Exactly. CBS has little upside to making it all up. I expect more than anything they wanted to bury it, but this isn't 2002 any more.

[Rachel RSL]

On 12/25/2019 at 8:23 AM, EzraTank said:

  I sat on the couch with my 12 year old son and explained to him everything that was happening and warned him to never ever go near a SJW woman in the future.

That's great!   Most people took the opportunity to point out to their kids that it's better to be a SJW and stand up for what's right than to be a creepy groper who harasses women even after he's been told multiple times by multiple people to stop.  But, hey, to each their own.

[treeofdreams]

I had to look up what SJW meant...

I didn't see Kellee as a "Social Justice Warrior".  I saw a woman standing up for her own personal space and boundaries, as I would hope any woman - or person of any gender - would do.

I would think it would be better to teach one's son what is appropriate and what is inappropriate rather than telling him to avoid anyone.

[EzraTank]

On 12/29/2019 at 12:21 PM, Ashforth said:

Realities shows are not courts of law. Neither are other workplaces. Employers are allowed to fire employees without having a trial first. If Dan wants to speak out to defend himself, he can, unless he agreed to a non-disclosure agreement, in which case that was his choice.

Yes but they are also opening themselves to lawsuits.  You have no idea what you're talking about saying you can be fired for no reason.

[EzraTank]

On 12/31/2019 at 12:27 PM, treeofdreams said:

I had to look up what SJW meant...

I didn't see Kellee as a "Social Justice Warrior".  I saw a woman standing up for her own personal space and boundaries, as I would hope any woman - or person of any gender - would do.

I would think it would be better to teach one's son what is appropriate and what is inappropriate rather than telling him to avoid anyone.

I also have a daughter.  I would never want either of them to date someone like Kellee.  Again not hearing Dan's side is troubling for me.  If you watch this show I can show you TONS of times women touched men without any issue.  The show sets it up for Pete's sake having people sleep in their underwear, in a makeshift shelter during pouring rain spooning with each other to stay warm but someone touching someone's leg is suddenly the end of the world.  Even during the show other women said they were only making up the Dan touching to advance their game.  The whole situation was horribly handled by CBS and everyone involved.  Then you flip over to Big Brother and there is CBS practically encouraging their behavior.

And believe me I do teach my kids about personal space and what is and isn't acceptable. 

[Ashforth]

16 minutes ago, EzraTank said:

Yes but they are also opening themselves to lawsuits.  You have no idea what you're talking about saying you can be fired for no reason.

I actually know quite a bit about this issue, since I work in the field of employment law. Generally, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason, as long as it isn't for an illegal reason. "Accused sexual harasser" is not a protected class under federal law or any state law that I know of.

Quote

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Ashforth

[simplyme]

On 12/31/2019 at 12:27 PM, treeofdreams said:

I had to look up what SJW meant...

It used to be a term that was used and seen as a positive thing. You know, people campaigning for basic human rights across society. Then Gamergate happened and it got co-opted as an insult. (For an overview of the Gamergate controversy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy.)

Personally, as soon as I saw SJW, I ignored the rant. If you want to convince me of a point, you probably should avoid using terms associated with a campaign of harassment predicated on lies.

9 hours ago, EzraTank said:

 If you watch this show I can show you TONS of times women touched men without any issue. 

And tons of times that men touched women without any issue, but we're discussing a time when someone did have an issue... and also told the person. It's not like Dan didn't know.

And of course then there were some cases in previous seasons that probably should have been addressed but weren't, like Jean Paul apparently groping Courtney (and other women) repeatedly at night in China despite their complaints, and Sugar chasing Colby around at night to use as her personal pillow in HvV.

You know what those have in common with Dan and Kellee? If someone is openly uncomfortable with you touching them or tells you to stop, then you stop. Generally, it's not anyone else's right to decide what is an okay touch (and from who) and what is not.

[Nashville]

11 hours ago, EzraTank said:

Yes but they are also opening themselves to lawsuits.  You have no idea what you're talking about saying you can be fired for no reason.

Depends to a large degree upon which state you’re in; short of union or other similar collective bargaining agreement stipulations to the contrary, in Tennessee I guarantee you that you can get sacked for no cause.  The majority of U. S. states, in fact,  are “at-will” states - which means an employer can terminate an employee whenever they want, without any requirement to cite a justification for the firing.

[Rachel RSL]

17 hours ago, EzraTank said:

The show sets it up for Pete's sake having people sleep in their underwear, in a makeshift shelter during pouring rain spooning with each other to stay warm but someone touching someone's leg is suddenly the end of the world.

Nobody is saying that accidental touching is the end of the world, it happens sometimes, anyone who has ever taken public transit can attest to this.  In this very specific scenario, Dan was told not to touch the women by multiple people on multiple occasions.  There was no ambiguity about it.  Do. Not. Touch.   We saw it all on camera so I don't know why anyone needs to hear Dan's side in order to believe it's true.

What I do find fascinating about this is how some men are acting like they're the victims in this scenario. Like someone has taken away their God-given right to touch women whenever they want to.  For the record, it's not the end of the world to keep your hands to yourself.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Rachel RSL

[treeofdreams]

Yes, there is always a lot of touching in Survivor,  But there is normal touching, and there is creepy touching.

Laying your head on the  crotch of a woman you have just met is creepy.  Touching the face of a woman who has asked you not to touch her is creepy.  Spooning in the shelter is normal; throwing your leg over the woman while spooning is creepy.

Getting mad because you've been told not to touch women in ways they did not like is creepy.

The women found Dan's touching to be creepy.  I would agree.

Edited January 2, 2020 by treeofdreams

[ljenkins782]

On 12/25/2019 at 8:23 AM, EzraTank said:

Okay after finally watching the last episode and reunion show I feel the same.  Survivor in typical Hollywood fashion took the side of Kellee which was no surprise.  I sat on the couch with my 12 year old son and explained to him everything that was happening and warned him to never ever go near a SJW woman in the future.

Could Dan have been guilty and wrong, possibly but we will never know because no evidence was shown besides what happened in the show which he already apologized for.  But for Survivor to sit there and give Kellee the floor and NOT let Dan tell his side of the story is horrible.  Again if Dan is guilty so be it but give him his day in court.  That's what the current world seems to be forgetting that EVERYONE is entitled their day in court.

Do you honestly think Dan was willing to sit up there on the stage after what happened? OR that he would have said anything of substance on the topic? We all saw his reaction when they discussed it at tribal council, he couldn't wait to change the subject and avoid discussing anything about it. I sincerely doubt he was chomping at the bit to get back on national tv and discuss it again. He was asked nicely by Kellee in the very beginning to stop touching her, he (and the rest of them) had the sit down with production on the topic and was apparently told privately as well. And he still didn't stop. What could he possibly to have to even say about that. "Yeah, they told me, but I still assumed it wasn't a big deal, so I didn't stop." 

As far as Kellee being an alleged SJW (which you clearly see as a bad thing), she didn't set out to be one. She was bothered by being touched, she said so and confronted the person doing it, it didn't stop, so she continued to speak about it. Dan's actions and the whole mess with Missy/Elisabeth/Janet thrust her into the role by proxy. 

And as for teaching your kid "not to go near a SJW", it's hardly the worst lesson in the world to teach your kid not to go touching people without their consent. It's really not a case of being "woke" or "too PC" to expect that someone you're not in a relationship with won't be touching you in a way that makes you uncomfortable. It SHOULD be the standard of behavior.

[meatball77]

Yes!!

And, sometimes there can be confusion as to boundries (There is a lot of touching on Survivor, they are cold, the shelters are hard), but if you are told by someone that something you are doing makes them uncomfortable then you STOP DOING IT.  It doesn't matter if other people are touching or even if she's touching other people.  She told him to stop, multiple times and he didn't.  The fact that anyone thinks that he was not in the wrong here is absurd. 

Please teach your kid to respect people's boundries and that they get to choose if they are touched (as does he).  It doesn't matter if it seems like no big deal, to some people it is.  There are people who don't want anyone to touch them for religious reasons, for medical reasons or just because they don't like you, even if they are ok with other people doing it.  I don't understand why anyone would disagree at all except for entitlement.  Thinking that you somehow have more agency over other people than they do themselves. 

Schools are teaching this now and it's normal behavior (often as a tool for autistic kids).  You say, can I have a hug before giving one, or look for open arms.  Then the kids can say no, I'd rather have a high 5 and boom, you're good.

Edited January 6, 2020 by meatball77

[treeofdreams]

My thought is that this pattern of incidents was not about sex, it was about power, entitlement, and intimidation.  Establishing his dominance by touching, and continuing to touch even after being asked not to.

[Bryce Lynch]

15 hours ago, meatball77 said:

Yes!!

And, sometimes there can be confusion as to boundries (There is a lot of touching on Survivor, they are cold, the shelters are hard), but if you are told by someone that something you are doing makes them uncomfortable then you STOP DOING IT.  It doesn't matter if other people are touching or even if she's touching other people.  She told him to stop, multiple times and he didn't.  The fact that anyone thinks that he was not in the wrong here is absurd. 

Please teach your kid to respect people's boundries and that they get to choose if they are touched (as does he).  It doesn't matter if it seems like no big deal, to some people it is.  There are people who don't want anyone to touch them for religious reasons, for medical reasons or just because they don't like you, even if they are ok with other people doing it.  I don't understand why anyone would disagree at all except for entitlement.  Thinking that you somehow have more agency over other people than they do themselves. 

Schools are teaching this now and it's normal behavior (often as a tool for autistic kids).  You say, can I have a hug before giving one, or look for open arms.  Then the kids can say no, I'd rather have a high 5 and boom, you're good.

That sums it up pretty well.  If someone indicates they don't want to be touched, don't touch them.  The reasons don't really matter.  

As for the motives of the touchers, I think sometimes it is sexual, sometimes it is power, and sometimes they are just people who like to be touched, and can't grasp that other people don't.   

But, whatever the motive, it is still pretty simple, don't touch people who have made it clear they don't want to be touched, period.  In fact, don't touch anyone unless it has been made rather clear that the touching is welcome. 

[Special K]

On 1/2/2020 at 10:50 AM, Rachel RSL said:

What I do find fascinating about this is how some men are acting like they're the victims in this scenario. Like someone has taken away their God-given right to touch women whenever they want to. 

This is spot on.

ETA:  And that the SJWs of the world will somehow have to  soldier on without the unwelcome touch of those men.  It's gonna be hard ladies (and gentlemen) but we must try.  🙂

Edited January 6, 2020 by Special K

[ProfCrash]

2 hours ago, Special K said:

This is spot on.

ETA:  And that the SJWs of the world will somehow have to  soldier on without the unwelcome touch of those men.  It's gonna be hard ladies (and gentlemen) but we must try.  🙂

It would be even harder if we could stop cat calls and rude comments on the street.

[Lamb18]

Seeing Harvey Weinstein on the news this week, I couldn't help thinking that his physical appearance is Dan's future.

Is Weinstein really that decrepit or is the walker a ploy for sympathy?

[BK1978]

18 hours ago, Lamb18 said:

Is Weinstein really that decrepit or is the walker a ploy for sympathy?

I was wondering the same thing.  Part of me is wondering if Harvey is doing the whole Vincent "the Chin" Gigante, defense of, "I am insane and feeble.  Please have pity on me."

[phlebas]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:22 AM, BK1978 said:

I was wondering the same thing.  Part of me is wondering if Harvey is doing the whole Vincent "the Chin" Gigante, defense of, "I am insane and feeble.  Please have pity on me."

My "WEINSTEIN DIDN'T WALKER HIMSELF" t-shirts are going to make me a fortune.