Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Monday, June 16th Daily Discussion
Topic Started: Jun 13 2014, 11:56 PM (17,472 Views)
concerned
Member Avatar


naptown
Jun 16 2014, 06:36 PM
Rosebud
Jun 16 2014, 06:29 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 16 2014, 05:15 PM
Rosebud
Jun 16 2014, 04:29 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
It's far too early to assume that Sami is going to pull off this scheme (if she is, in fact, scheming) successfully. But yes, she is certainly capable of pulling off schemes for a while, even if they ultimately end up backfiring on her.
I never argued that she isn't capable of pulling off schemes that she devises in that twisted noggin of hers. But they are never successful. They always end up biting her in the butt. Thankfully.
Like the fuckery that was her "Stan" scheme!
Well to be fair Tony coerced her into that one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crookedhalo


concerned
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM
naptown
Jun 16 2014, 06:36 PM
Rosebud
Jun 16 2014, 06:29 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 16 2014, 05:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepsuccessfully. But yes, she is certainly capable of pulling off schemes for a while, even if they ultimately end up backfiring on her.
I never argued that she isn't capable of pulling off schemes that she devises in that twisted noggin of hers. But they are never successful. They always end up biting her in the butt. Thankfully.
Like the fuckery that was her "Stan" scheme!
Well to be fair Tony coerced her into that one.
wasn't it the guy pretending to be Tony while Tony was stuck on an island?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 07:48 PM
concerned
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM
naptown
Jun 16 2014, 06:36 PM
Rosebud
Jun 16 2014, 06:29 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepsuccessfully
Like the fuckery that was her "Stan" scheme!
Well to be fair Tony coerced her into that one.
wasn't it the guy pretending to be Tony while Tony was stuck on an island?
Ok Andre coerced her into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1K6yHpVYiU
Edited by concerned, Jun 16 2014, 07:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crookedhalo


concerned
Jun 16 2014, 07:49 PM
crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 07:48 PM
concerned
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM
naptown
Jun 16 2014, 06:36 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepsuccessfully
Well to be fair Tony coerced her into that one.
wasn't it the guy pretending to be Tony while Tony was stuck on an island?
Ok Andre coerced her into it.
Andre used her like a puppet, but I think she enjoyed putting the screws to John.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaha
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Did you see something different?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crookedhalo


concerned
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM
naptown
Jun 16 2014, 06:36 PM
Rosebud
Jun 16 2014, 06:29 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 16 2014, 05:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepsuccessfully. But yes, she is certainly capable of pulling off schemes for a while, even if they ultimately end up backfiring on her.
I never argued that she isn't capable of pulling off schemes that she devises in that twisted noggin of hers. But they are never successful. They always end up biting her in the butt. Thankfully.
Like the fuckery that was her "Stan" scheme!
Well to be fair Tony coerced her into that one.
BTW, off topic, has anyone ever noticed that Will looks like the son of Sami & Stan? LOL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KateDiMera
Member Avatar


crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM

Quote:
 
it seems to me that he was sloshed and she took advantage of the fact he was sloshed, anymore sloshed and he would be blubbering. If the roles were reversed and Kate was the drunk one, it would be called date rape...just saying.

Sloshed? I don't know about that. The first time Kate & Rafe had sex they were both sloshed and, comparatively speaking, he wasn't acting overly inebriated.

And just because alcohol is involved doesn't mean consent can't be given. If either were to claim that consent wasn't given, then we can start talking 'date rape.' Did she take advantage of him in a vulnerable state? Yes. Was he a willing participant who consciously made a mistake? Yes.

Man, I need to stop reading this board. Ya'll are making me have an inkling of sympathy for Rafe & Jordan. I prefer to see Kate as the heroic destroyer of ennui in this storyline. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crookedhalo


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Did you see something different?
I would call Justin & Adrienne a super couple and their children never went through that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaha
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Did you see something different?
I was talking in a general terms. And I don't think anyone saw Theresa growing up on screen. Also, there are missing years in every supercouple's children's lives (thanks to SORASing). Not to mention, my comment doesn't say anything about parents not being loving parents when they're with their children. I was just talking about how a parent's disappearance can have a long term impact on a child. Your comment came off (at least to me) as dismissive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 08:03 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Did you see something different?
I would call Justin & Adrienne a super couple and their children never went through that.
I'm not following your point because I don't think the other kids really did either. Brady and Belle were hella sheltered. Justin and Adrienne's kids were out of Salem the majority of their childhoods, though.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 08:06 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Uhm. Okay, I guess!
Did you see something different?
I was talking in a general terms. And I don't think anyone saw Theresa growing up on screen. Also, there are missing years in every supercouple's children's lives (thanks to SORASing). Not to mention, my comment doesn't say anything about parents not being loving parents when they're with their children. I was just talking about how a parent's disappearance can have a long term impact on a child. Your comment came off (at least to me) as dismissive.
LOL. Your comment came of as dismissive to me. But I didn't say any of those things you're saying either. Theresa's childhood was mostly offscreen, but a lot of what she does say is hard to reconcile with the little bit we did know. Not unlike most of the supercouple children who grew up offscreen. It's like this is the only story they know how to do for these kids, and it just doesn't match.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
crookedhalo


KateDiMera
Jun 16 2014, 08:00 PM
crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM

Quote:
 
it seems to me that he was sloshed and she took advantage of the fact he was sloshed, anymore sloshed and he would be blubbering. If the roles were reversed and Kate was the drunk one, it would be called date rape...just saying.

Sloshed? I don't know about that. The first time Kate & Rafe had sex they were both sloshed and, comparatively speaking, he wasn't acting overly inebriated.

And just because alcohol is involved doesn't mean consent can't be given. If either were to claim that consent wasn't given, then we can start talking 'date rape.' Did she take advantage of him in a vulnerable state? Yes. Was he a willing participant who consciously made a mistake? Yes.

Man, I need to stop reading this board. Ya'll are making me have an inkling of sympathy for Rafe & Jordan. I prefer to see Kate as the heroic destroyer of ennui in this storyline. ;)
1. This time Rafe was drunk and Kate wasn't.

2. And yes, if one person is drunk actually that does mean they may not be able to legally give consent. Like an adult with a minor the person under the influence doesn't have to try to stop the other.

3. We've seen a s/l where the girls were drugged and they were decided that they could not legally give consent.

4. Kate kept encouraging Rafe to drink, it was a disturbing scene. Fuck TPTB.

Wait I don't care for Jordan & Rafe...what am I saying Snor and Snorsville do nothing for me. It was bothersome I guess because here's Kate pretty sober and Rafe smashed and if the shoe was on the other foot it would be looked at differently.

And I don't think he consciously made a mistake I think his mind was silly putty and she played herself into his arms...YUCK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


LOL. I walked away mid-post and forgot which kids I was talking about.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomsawyer
Member Avatar


crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 08:12 PM
KateDiMera
Jun 16 2014, 08:00 PM
crookedhalo
Jun 16 2014, 07:41 PM

Quote:
 
it seems to me that he was sloshed and she took advantage of the fact he was sloshed, anymore sloshed and he would be blubbering. If the roles were reversed and Kate was the drunk one, it would be called date rape...just saying.

Sloshed? I don't know about that. The first time Kate & Rafe had sex they were both sloshed and, comparatively speaking, he wasn't acting overly inebriated.

And just because alcohol is involved doesn't mean consent can't be given. If either were to claim that consent wasn't given, then we can start talking 'date rape.' Did she take advantage of him in a vulnerable state? Yes. Was he a willing participant who consciously made a mistake? Yes.

Man, I need to stop reading this board. Ya'll are making me have an inkling of sympathy for Rafe & Jordan. I prefer to see Kate as the heroic destroyer of ennui in this storyline. ;)
1. This time Rafe was drunk and Kate wasn't.

2. And yes, if one person is drunk actually that does mean they may not be able to legally give consent. Like an adult with a minor the person under the influence doesn't have to try to stop the other.

3. We've seen a s/l where the girls were drugged and they were decided that they could not legally give consent.

4. Kate kept encouraging Rafe to drink, it was a disturbing scene. Fuck TPTB.

Wait I don't care for Jordan & Rafe...what am I saying Snor and Snorsville do nothing for me. It was bothersome I guess because here's Kate pretty sober and Rafe smashed and if the shoe was on the other foot it would be looked at differently.

And I don't think he consciously made a mistake I think his mind was silly putty and she played herself into his arms...YUCK
Say what? People can totally give consent when they're drunk. Otherwise, like 50% of sex during college would be rape. Seriously though, there's a difference between so sloshed that you are barely conscious or drugged to a point where you don't even know what's happening, and just being drunk. Rafe definitely fell in the latter category. No jury is going to find Kate guilty of rape. She's kind of an asshole for taking advantage of a drunk person, but there's no law against being an asshole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaha
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 08:10 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 08:06 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:55 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Did you see something different?
I was talking in a general terms. And I don't think anyone saw Theresa growing up on screen. Also, there are missing years in every supercouple's children's lives (thanks to SORASing). Not to mention, my comment doesn't say anything about parents not being loving parents when they're with their children. I was just talking about how a parent's disappearance can have a long term impact on a child. Your comment came off (at least to me) as dismissive.
LOL. Your comment came of as dismissive to me. But I didn't say any of those things you're saying either. Theresa's childhood was mostly offscreen, but a lot of what she does say is hard to reconcile with the little bit we did know. Not unlike most of the supercouple children who grew up offscreen. It's like this is the only story they know how to do for these kids, and it just doesn't match.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I just like stories that explore human emotions. I think Theresa is a poorly drawn character but she can have genuine insecurities developed as a result of her absentee dad. It doesn't matter to a child whether their father is saving the world or doing something trivial. What matters is that their dad is not around when they need him. I would've liked to know what motivates Theresa or Brady. I think Brady has more of a legitimate reason to be angry with John than griping about his childhood, but can still be affected by his dad's absence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
concerned
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 06:19 PM
I don't really get why the show keeps falling back on these ONS/cheating stories, but at least this one makes more sense than the last one I guess. I don't know or care enough about Jordan to know what an in character response from her would be like, so I really couldn't care less how this story resolves (if it does). Rafe's reason/excuse isn't great, but it's at least better than the last few people have had, lol.

Meanwhile, Kate's taste in men continues to get worse and worse. I guess it's in character at this point, but the Kate I enjoyed wouldn't have been caught dead with Rafe (or Roman...or John). She needs rich old guys or young hot guys. Blue collar men need not apply.
Like this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gBeHUv67M

@13.44
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:42 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 07:05 PM
I know a lot of people are very loyal to 'supercouples' and they believe they can do no wrong, but you cannot deny their lives were full upheaval. We also know that a healthy and stable early child development is a major determinant of health. And you cannot have a healthy childhood if one of your parent is missing, then comes back from the dead, then disappears again. I think all of the children of supercouples had a messed up childhood. Some of them will be affected and others can cope with it. I don't mind if they explored those issues, but I don't think the writers have any inclination or the talents to explore the actual issues.
Protection of the super couples is irrelevant. People are talking about what actually aired versus what didn't.
And what logically makes sense based on everything we did see.

All I'm sort of asking, saying, suggesting, whatever you wanna call it, is... are we really to believe that even though John and Marlena were loving and attentive as parents (together and not together, they always co-parented Belle and Brady, at Marlena's insistence), that once Brady went from age 8ish (which I believe the little guys who played him were when J&M got married) to the day after J&M got married, they became unloving, unwilling, cold and distant parents? Because that's kind of what the show is suggesting with Brady's attitude. That they weren't there. John did look for his real identity, much of that happened in Salem (unless you wanna call a trip to the DiMera mansion 10 mins away from the Penthouse an 'adventure'). And Marlena worked, and we saw her work, this does not make her a bad mother either. And Belle was in Salem, and based on what she's said, she didn't have this experience. Is the show going to now suggest not only did they change overnight, but they didn't lovingly parent one child while doing so for the other?

It's awful, unlogical, inconsistent and downright stupid writing. And it's lazy as hell. I'm so sick of kids spewing out crap and the parent just stands there and takes it. If I spoke these lies to my mother, she would have cut me off before I could say "Disinherited".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lysie


Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 08:20 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 08:10 PM
Kaha
Jun 16 2014, 08:06 PM
lysie
Jun 16 2014, 07:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I was talking in a general terms. And I don't think anyone saw Theresa growing up on screen. Also, there are missing years in every supercouple's children's lives (thanks to SORASing). Not to mention, my comment doesn't say anything about parents not being loving parents when they're with their children. I was just talking about how a parent's disappearance can have a long term impact on a child. Your comment came off (at least to me) as dismissive.
LOL. Your comment came of as dismissive to me. But I didn't say any of those things you're saying either. Theresa's childhood was mostly offscreen, but a lot of what she does say is hard to reconcile with the little bit we did know. Not unlike most of the supercouple children who grew up offscreen. It's like this is the only story they know how to do for these kids, and it just doesn't match.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I just like stories that explore human emotions. I think Theresa is a poorly drawn character but she can have genuine insecurities developed as a result of her absentee dad. It doesn't matter to a child whether their father is saving the world or doing something trivial. What matters is that their dad is not around when they need him. I would've liked to know what motivates Theresa or Brady. I think Brady has more of a legitimate reason to be angry with John than griping about his childhood, but can still be affected by his dad's absence.
I like stories about human emotions, too. I just prefer they don't pull the circumstances out of their butts which is exactly what they've done with Brady. Theresa is a good bit different, but I think the actual writing for her backstory has been awful and all over the place (like most things), so it makes it frustrating when they do that AND then do it at the expense of a character that was actually well written at one point. It's basically the definition of throwing a character under the bus.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply