Author |
Message |
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:35 pm
That was an excellent and insightful post, Kep. I agree with you 110%.
|
Lancecrossfire
Moderator
07-13-2000
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:43 pm
KL--she can do that when she gets booted. No need to wait till months later. Or she can just do what she did to the raft. Kep, agree that evaluating what Rich did should not include anything about Sue, unless she gave him permission. (which she didn't) The unfortunate thing about Survivor is that for the most part, there are no rules. It makes things like this within the boundaries of the game itself. Although there have been lots of times that we've commented what was done (although within the game rules) was really completely unacceptable behavior.
|
Auntiemike
Member
09-17-2001
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:15 pm
I don't care how many disclaimers there are for these type of moments in a show, I still consider the time slot a family viewing time and given the fact that my kids like to watch Survivor, I DON'T like them seeing that type of behavior. Why do we have to be part of it? Why couldn't that have been edited out? Given the heightened sensitivity to these issues in the media it would make sense to have left it out completely. This was a long challenge and I'm sure there was other footage to show us that would build up the interest into which tribe prevailed. Maybe it's a reminder that this is indeed all for entertainment and shouldn't be considered a reality show.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:19 pm
I dont see it as all that much to get upset about. As far as kids are concerned, I think they probably exposed to far more risque behavior more with amber and robM rubbing against each other under the blankets and robC saying I bet they are doing it, than they could see of Richard and Sue.
|
Faerygdds
Member
08-29-2000
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:24 pm
It's so funny... my 9 year old nephew watches survivor. Mom, Dad, and I were all SO concerned with what was shown. His reaction??? He said, "Dad... why doesn't that man like clothes???" My brother told he that he just didn't like to wear them and he said to him. "He should have brought some that fit better. I'll bet that's why he keeps taking them off." Point??? WE worry and fret about it far too much in comparison to the impression it actually leaves on the kids. We, in our puritanical viewpoints think it goes to far... kids.. they just figure something else and move on -- no big deal. Maybe we should take the hint! 
|
Gmarie
Member
02-12-2004
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:42 pm
Kep, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you, for saying what I was thinking so eloquently. I am so glad Richard is gone. No one should have to put up with his nudity, or Tom's offensive mouth for that matter. I don't care if the show is called "Survivor".
|
Puttergirl
Member
08-11-2000
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:45 pm
Faerygdds, the problem with your scenario is that what matters are the people in the situtation and whether they want to constantly be exposed to someone else's nudity. Its not like a nudist camp, where everyone has expressly agreed its no problem. These people cannot just walk away from it. Nudity, and especially touching while nude, should be a consensual act and not forced upon anyone!!!! So, I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter whether we think its ok or not. It only matters that Sue didn't! Thats what pissed me off about Jeff's reaction. It doesn't matter what he thinks about Richard's nudity; he should defend the people who don't want to be a part of it.
|
Starshine40
Member
07-30-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:47 pm
Auntiemike said, "Why couldn't that have been edited out? Given the heightened sensitivity to these issues in the media it would make sense to have left it out completely. " I think we have to wait till next week to see what happens to know how or if it affects the rest of the game. We don't yet know what the fallout will be. I won't say what but there is a spoiler item out that indicates there is some effect.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:49 pm
I would agree with you on that Puttergirl. The thing is we dont know if Jeff is minimizing the incident with Richard or if it was something else. If it was the incident with Richard, then I dont blame Sue for being ticked off. I probably would be too, especially if you consider she takes any derogatory comments about women personally. She would probably see his brushing her off as another example of discounting her views as a woman. It isnt surprising that she might react that way. I am sure it isnt all that easy being a female trucker and she probably has to deal with discrimination and ridicule quite a bit.
|
Starshine40
Member
07-30-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:50 pm
Sheilaree said, "will there be a Survivor 8?" This IS Survivor 8. Agreements were reached between CBS and Mark Burnett for 2 more Survivors recently and I have read that Jeff Probst has a contract thru Survivor 12.
|
Llkoolaid
Member
08-01-2001
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:04 pm
Kept, I agree with you 100%, I was a Rich fan until last night, now to me he is slimey. I wonder how Sue's kids felt watching this creep assault their mother. Sue can be loud and crude ( using the bathroom on the raft) but that is no comparison to rubbing your genitals on a woman who hasn't invited you to. I would like to see the reaction of Rob and the other men if Rich had of done his rubbing on Amber or one of the other younger women.
|
Bluebug
Member
01-05-2004
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:07 pm
I'm sorry but I really don't think any person or child was REALLY emotionally scarred by this or Janet Jackson or anything else of the sort. On both occasions I could barely tell what was happening and if people didn't make such a big deal out of it I probably wouldn't have even noticed. I think at least part of this outrage is because people expect others to be outraged.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-17-2003
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:36 pm
GREAT THREAD! I couldnt believe it when Rich decided midway thru the comp to whip off his shorts. If you listen to the others, they are making comments while Rich strips. I am pretty sure I heard Jeff say "OH COME-ON RICH!" in a disgusted tone. Sue will not be too traumatized by the event but I agree with a comment from another poster....clothes should become MANDATORY for comps. Osten and his toobig undies was not a deliberate attempt to intimidate last season, Rich uses his size and naked body to make people uncomfortable. Somehow I think Rich is probably even more dispised by the public after this appearance on ALLSTARs... then he was on the first season. I'd be happy never to see him on TV again (but that is just me and my opinon) }
|
Urgrace
Member
08-19-2000
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:49 pm
Frankly, I was tired of Richard flaunting his genitals in our faces. From the previews there is a possibility more happened behind the scenes of that episode or something compounds the incident on the next episode. Sue seems to be too strong to let little things get under her skin and make her so openly upset. I'm imagining something else causes her so much grief that she nearly breaks down. She seemed upset in her confessional last night when she was talking about Tom, too.
|
Bluebug
Member
01-05-2004
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:49 pm
What he did made the show interesting. What he did didn't make me despise him. When he was edging by them I was laughing. Using his body as a way to avoid a fight may seem wierd but it worked. Not only that he was funny. I don't think anyone could really say they didn't find him funny. Everything he did made the show better.
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:04 pm
kep 421, i think you said it best about richard's jewels: "no big deal". i think it's just stupid for the production to let him run around like a 3-year-old (only with smaller jewels) when they have to spend hours later 'blurring' over all the tape he is in. he obviously does it to intimidate, but it just comes off as a spoiled, "if i feel like it, i'll go naked....i don't give a damn about any of you." i wish they hadn't had him back--not for the nudity, but because he is such an ass! then i remember robm and jerri and say, "oh, being an ass doesn't automatically eliminate you!" i can't stand robm but he thinks he is the robfather again and, this time, he's getting away with it! he was impressive with his scurrying around yesterday, but other than that, he isn't doing much. it seems to me, if i were on survivor, i would play the way andrew did, and this group seems to be: start right away with naming someone to vote out and start asking people to vote with you. do anything to take the attention off yourself and have them debating between 2 other survivors.
|
Auntiemike
Member
09-17-2001
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:32 pm
Since some of you think it was "no big deal" about what Rich did, then why didn't we SEE Sue pee on the raft. No big deal either.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:45 pm
What exactly did you "See" Rich do? I saw Sue sit on the corner of the raft, she didnt take her bathing suit bottoms off but they said she was peeing.
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:49 pm
auntiemike, i meant it as the 'jewels' are small! re-read my post, thinking of 'no big deal' as the size of his package!! richard just disgusts me!
|
Auntiemike
Member
09-17-2001
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:54 pm
Got it Tabby. Thanks. ;-) He doesn't have to disgust us anymore...yahoo! I do think others don't seem to be bothered by his closeness and nudity near Sue. Oh well. I'm just glad he's gone. Maybe Sue will be gone, too, soon!
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:34 pm
It all happened so fast and with the blurr you really couldn't tell how bad it was, I also think it was heavily edited, something about the way JP said 'come on guys' I think there was a lot more than we saw I think Tom is one that pisses Sue off next week
|
Jadarville
Member
07-01-2001
| Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:41 pm
Wow I feel like I was watching a totally different show. I could have sworn Sue purposely stopped and waited specifically for Rich. I thought she was going to do something to piss him off as she always seems to be trying to do. Then the whole "assault" (uh... whatever..)was so quick and blurred (thank goodness) it was kind of like what the heck was all that? In regards to it being on during family hour, CBS did post a warning that the upcoming scene may contain material inappropriate for younger audiences or something along those lines. That generally means kick the kiddies out of the room for a while. I glanced over at my 15 year old, figured there probably wouldn't be anything he couldn't handle, and when it was over we both kind of looked at each other with "huh?" expressions wondering why they bothered with the warnings. Should Sue (or any woman) be subjected to someone rubbing their genitals uninvited against them? of course not. Could Sue very firmly say "hey jerk, don't do that again" (a no imo opinion should be the first course of action in anything someone considers over the top). of course she could have. I don't think Richard should have done it, but I don't think it's the huge deal it's being made out to be. and man, Janet Jackson has never had so much publicity in her life. Maybe people (the media) should just shut up about the whole thing. as for Richard's nudity offending the other players, hey, they can leave if they want :> (ok, moot point since he's the one who's gone, maybe that's why the tribe spoke lol)
|
Watching2
Member
07-07-2001
| Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:41 am
FWIW, while what Rich did was gross and wrong, Sue probably has signed away all of her "rights" to be on the show and wouldn't be able to sue at least CBS, etc. Why? I just read the Bachelorette contract that Trista signed from the Smoking Gun site (there's a link to it if anyone is interested on the "After the last Rose" thread) and YIKES, they assume ALL the risks themselves, and basically give up their rights to sue the producers or any of the companies. I'm sure CBS, Mark Burnett, etc., have iron-clad contracts with these people to protect themselves - esp. after the Big Brother incident with the knife in season 2. Yes, it even includes any harm from other participants, including physical assault (rape), STDs, and any activity they want you to participate in where you could DIE! It may well include the other contestants too, but it's so long, I forget what I read!
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:44 am
even though i knew something happened because there were the warnings in advance, it would almost have passed unnoticed because of how quickly it happened and because richard and sue are always outrageous and obnoxious, separately or together... for me, the whole thing of him being naked all the time got old quick. if i wanted to see an overweight guy in the nude, i'd go to my bedroom richard started this challenge with shorts on, and then stripped them off. he just has no feelings for anyone else's comfort.
|
Watching2
Member
07-07-2001
| Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:49 am
I also agree that they shouldn't allow the nudity at competitions either. Although I guess the rest of them could strip, too, (perish that thought...LOL)but since he was the only one using it as an intimidation factor, I think he should have been told to keep himself covered, at least at the challenges.
|