Jamie's "infidelity"???
NewsRadio
Just caught the syndicated episode where they go to the wedding (Is it
"the wedding affair"??) where Jamie reveals to Paul (after he pushes her)
that she slept with another guy just befor they moved in together, after
they had begun going steady... My question for all you die-hard MAY fans
is this. Howcome Paul seemed so understanding and got over this fairly
quickly (she reveals the "secret" in the last ten mins of the show and
they are dancing together by the end, but not until Paul does some
ranting and raving), and yet "THE KISS" in last years season finale was
obviously a much bigger deal and cause much more pain and hurt to the
marriage? I would think the "sleeping with someone else" would be much
MUCH worse than "the kiss". The only way I figure it is that Paul wasnt
as upset since they hadnt been engaged yet (or even moved in together yet
for that matter) whereas "THE KISS" happend while they were married? Any
thoughts on this 'cause otherwise I'm lost!
--
--------------------------------------------
The Canadian Broadcast Directory
and Broadcast Engineering Page:
http://www.interlog.com/~jmckay
Southern Ontario Storm Chasers/Canwarn Page:
http://www.interlog.com/~jmckay/chaser.htm
--------------------------------------------
Gregory J Cebelinski
In a previous article, jmc...@interlog.com (NewsRadio) says:
[snip]
> Just caught the syndicated episode where they go to the wedding (Is it
> "the wedding affair"??) where Jamie reveals to Paul (after he pushes her)
> that she slept with another guy just befor they moved in together, after
> they had begun going steady...
> Howcome Paul seemed so understanding and got over this fairly
> quickly (she reveals the "secret" in the last ten mins of the show and
> they are dancing together by the end, but not until Paul does some
> ranting and raving)
I thought he was plenty angry, but in the end, after hearing Jamie's
explanation, he could understand her position. She loves him and didn't
want to hurt him. That is why she withheld the truth.
> I would think the "sleeping with someone else" would be much
> MUCH worse than "the kiss". The only way I figure it is that Paul wasnt
> as upset since they hadnt been engaged yet (or even moved in together yet
> for that matter) whereas "THE KISS" happend while they were married? Any
> thoughts on this 'cause otherwise I'm lost!
There was alot of problems between these two when we she kissed that
Berkus dude. Was it a loss of love between the two that pushed her
towards the kiss? A ton of emotion was involved at this point, and that
is why the kiss caused such a stir.
Of course, I could be all wrong! :')
Les and Anita Reed
In article <324C00...@interlog.com>, jmc...@interlog.com
(NewsRadio) says...
> Just caught the syndicated episode where they go to the wedding (Is it
> "the wedding affair"??) where Jamie reveals to Paul (after he pushes her)
> and got over this fairly quickly...and yet "THE KISS" in last years
> season finale was obviously a much bigger deal...I would think the
> The only way I figure it is that Paul wasnt as upset since they hadnt
> been engaged yet (or even moved in together yet for that matter)
> whereas "THE KISS" happend while they were married? Any
> thoughts on this 'cause otherwise I'm lost!
>
difference in his reactions to the two incidents. My theory
is that he could handle the first one better for two
reasons. First, it occurred outside the confines of the
marriage very early in the relationship. The man involved
was also gone from her life. Second, it had nothing to do
with his own guilty feelings. The KISS occurred some 4
years into the marriage with a man Jamie was in contact with
every day (an ongoing threat to Paul, in his eyes). And I
subscribe to the belief that most of the ranting and raving
Paul did over the KISS had to do with his own feelings of
guilt about what he almost did himself. He was more angry
with himself than with her, IMHO.
Anita in Carolina
Jerry Dellinger
NewsRadio <jmc...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Just caught the syndicated episode where they go to the wedding (Is it
>"the wedding affair"??) where Jamie reveals to Paul (after he pushes her)
>that she slept with another guy just befor they moved in together, after
>they had begun going steady... My question for all you die-hard MAY fans
>is this. Howcome Paul seemed so understanding and got over this fairly
>quickly (she reveals the "secret" in the last ten mins of the show and
>they are dancing together by the end, but not until Paul does some
>ranting and raving), and yet "THE KISS" in last years season finale was
>obviously a much bigger deal and cause much more pain and hurt to the
>marriage? I would think the "sleeping with someone else" would be much
>MUCH worse than "the kiss". The only way I figure it is that Paul wasnt
>as upset since they hadnt been engaged yet (or even moved in together yet
>for that matter) whereas "THE KISS" happend while they were married? Any
>thoughts on this 'cause otherwise I'm lost!
I don't think you're lost. I agree with you that it was because they
didn't have the pact between them, the ring, the commitment. I think
that he would have been just as angry and felt just as betrayed if
they had been living together or engaged. They were both still "free"
people at this stage. Sure it hurt him, but he felt that it couldn't
have meant *that* much to her if she moved in with him shortly
thereafter and they became engaged. She chose him, not the other guy.
In "The Kiss," she chose the other guy.
Jerry
Heidi L Sackerson
Gregory J Cebelinski wrote:
> There was alot of problems between these two when we she kissed that
> Berkus dude. Was it a loss of love between the two that pushed her
> towards the kiss? A ton of emotion was involved at this point, and that
> is why the kiss caused such a stir.
>
> Of course, I could be all wrong! :')
Berkus kissed HER, not the other way around. That's why I felt that in
many ways, Paul was more wrong than Jamie when he considered having an
affair with that woman at the Silver Sprockets. PAUL considered doing
it. JAMIE did not. Berkus kissed her, and for a MOMENT, she let
herself get caught up in it. But she didn't actively plan to do
anything with him. That's why I was very disappointed that Paul didn't
get his little butt kicked, and that everything was made to look as if
it was Jamie's fault.
--
Heidi Sackerson (heid...@themall.net)
"What is life but a series of inspired follies?"
George Bernard Shaw
Jerry Dellinger
Heidi L Sackerson <heid...@themall.net> wrote:
>Berkus kissed HER, not the other way around. That's why I felt that in
>many ways, Paul was more wrong than Jamie when he considered having an
>affair with that woman at the Silver Sprockets. PAUL considered doing
>it. JAMIE did not. Berkus kissed her, and for a MOMENT, she let
>herself get caught up in it. But she didn't actively plan to do
>anything with him. That's why I was very disappointed that Paul didn't
>get his little butt kicked, and that everything was made to look as if
>it was Jamie's fault.
>--
>Heidi Sackerson (heid...@themall.net)
>"What is life but a series of inspired follies?"
> George Bernard Shaw
The kiss was done in two takes. In one of the shots, Jamie leans in
toward Berkus, thereby in a sense, asking him to kiss her. It is only
a technicality that he moved the rest of the way toward her.
The problem for Paul, if I read him correctly, is that he didn't
*know* what happened, how long the kiss was, what her feelings were.
He did know what he had felt about his walk with with the woman and,
of course, he felt guilty about it. But he was obsessing about the
kiss because of the images that kept running through his head.
Should he have had his butt kicked? 'Course he should. But I don't
think that he got off easily, though. I felt that as he was walking
around town dealing with Jamie's indiscretion, he was also having to
deal with his own. I didn't get the feeling that it was a one-way
street for him, and his "I'm sorry" at her bedside was as much of an
admission of guilt as it was an admission that he had treated her
unfairly.
Jerry
Gregory J Cebelinski
In a previous article, heid...@themall.net (Heidi L Sackerson) says:
[snips all over the place]
>>Gregory J Cebelinski wrote:
>> Of course, I could be all wrong! :')
>Berkus kissed HER, not the other way around.
That is why I alway say I could be wrong!
>Berkus kissed her, and for a MOMENT, she let herself get caught up in it.
This is really what I meant, she did get caught up in the moment.
>But she didn't actively plan to do anything with him.
>That's why I was very disappointed that Paul didn't
>get his little butt kicked, and that everything was made to look as if
>it was Jamie's fault.
I too was suprised. Jamie let him off quite easily.
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
indiscretion) come forth right away that he himself had a confession to
make, in that he nearly wert home to that other woman, but he himself
just had to leave at the worst possible moment? Was cowardice involved?
He ran away from Jamie, rather than to her. She exhibited bravery in
knowing it might hurt Paul to tell him that she kissed Berkus, but he ran
away-pants, shoes, coat and chess set.
Mary1
ASU
David A. Tharp
To a degree what was involved was the double standard. Or looking at
it from a slightly different angle it was what the Bible calls beams &
moats. Paul saw Jamie's indiscreation independent of his own . by doing this
he lacked a proper perspective on the problem.He was on a par with Jamie
but couldn't see it because he was to close to the problem.
--
David Tharp bl...@ysu.edu
"The Lack of money is the root of all evil." George Bernard Shaw
Gregory J Cebelinski
In a previous article, ma...@imap2.asu.edu () says:
>But I'm confused. Why didn't Paul (since they were on the subject of
>indiscretion) come forth right away that he himself had a confession to
>make, in that he nearly wert home to that other woman, but he himself
>just had to leave at the worst possible moment? Was cowardice involved?
>He ran away from Jamie, rather than to her. She exhibited bravery in
>knowing it might hurt Paul to tell him that she kissed Berkus, but he ran
>away-pants, shoes, coat and chess set.
>
>Mary1
>ASU
I totally agree with you Mary. He played off of her mistake, and totally
took advantage of her when he had the upper hand emotionally. He gave us
men a bad name after that episode.
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
On 30 Sep 1996, Gregory J Cebelinski wrote:
>
>
> >But I'm confused. Why didn't Paul (since they were on the subject of
> >indiscretion) come forth right away that he himself had a confession to
> >He ran away from Jamie, rather than to her. She exhibited bravery in
> >knowing it might hurt Paul to tell him that she kissed Berkus, but he ran
> >away-pants, shoes, coat and chess set.
> >
> >Mary1
> >ASU
>
> I totally agree with you Mary. He played off of her mistake, and totally
> took advantage of her when he had the upper hand emotionally. He gave us
> men a bad name after that episode.
>
and he RUNS AWAY. It does give men a bad name. I mean women make mistakes
and most of us own up to them, but Paul is not a man who "owns up". It's
not a fair picture to say that men are so perfect that they don't make
indiscretions and not have to admit to it. I make mistakes, and you can
even ask my fiance, I'm the first one to jump on myself and be hyper
critical of what I did (he says that "You're your own worst enemy, you
don't need anyone to rip you apart for your mistakes, you do the best job
of it all by yourself"), but let a man in Pauls' shoes do it-I don't think
so. He should've jumped in there and said something to the effect that
"he was human, too, and slipped up", but he didn't. He walked out the door.
Mary1
ASU
NewsRadio
Les and Anita Reed wrote:
> Here's my take on this: I, too, noticed a bit of a
> difference in his reactions to the two incidents. My theory
> is that he could handle the first one better for two
> reasons. First, it occurred outside the confines of the
> marriage very early in the relationship. The man involved
<snip>
> The KISS occurred some 4
> years into the marriage with a man Jamie was in contact with
> every day (an ongoing threat to Paul, in his eyes). And I
<snip>
>He was more angry
> with himself than with her, IMHO.
> Anita in Carolina
I guess this kind of dashes the theory I've read in several places that
Men are more concerned with their female partners having sex (in an
affair) while Women are more concerned with their male partners falling
in love with someone else. In other words, Sex is a big deal to Men in a
relationship wile Women are more concerned with the emotional aspects of
the relationship. These two episodes, when looked at together seem to
trash that theory!
--------------------------------
In another message, Gregory J Cebelinski wrote:
>
> I thought he was plenty angry, but in the end, after hearing Jamie's
> explanation, he could understand her position. She loves him and didn't
> want to hurt him. That is why she withheld the truth.
But thats my point, look at the much more severe response to "The
Kiss"???
>
> There was alot of problems between these two when we she kissed that
> Berkus dude. Was it a loss of love between the two that pushed her
> towards the kiss? A ton of emotion was involved at this point, and that
> is why the kiss caused such a stir.
>
I still feel (personally) that I would be more concerned with finding out
that my wife had slept with someone else just before we went from
"dating" to "living together/being engaged" than I would with finding out
that someone at her work "kissed" her (NB that I said "kissed her" not
"that she kissed someone else")....but perhaps I'm getting too caught up
in the physical side and am ignoring the underlying emotions to both
situations? Not sure....
Of course, it could be simply that at the time of filming/writing "the
wedding affair" Riser's future plans for the series were not as well
known. I'm sure in that early season they wouldn't have yet planned the
route the series was going to take by the time it got to the stage of
writing/filming the "kiss" episode.
John Mckay
Gregory J Cebelinski
In a previous article, jmc...@interlog.com (NewsRadio) says:
>I still feel (personally) that I would be more concerned with finding out
>that my wife had slept with someone else just before we went from
>"dating" to "living together/being engaged" than I would with finding out
>that someone at her work "kissed" her (NB that I said "kissed her" not
>"that she kissed someone else")....but perhaps I'm getting too caught up
>in the physical side and am ignoring the underlying emotions to both
>situations? Not sure....
The psyche of a man is a funny thing. When you said 'Not sure...' you
said it all. I just saw it as Jamie having concerns about another
serious relationship. The threat is gone, and she admits her mistake.
It would be hard to dismiss the love between these two.
Jeez, that is enough of my warm, sensitive side for one day!
Thomas Kennedy
> that my wife had slept with someone else just before we went from
> "dating" to "living together/being engaged" than I would with finding out
> that someone at her work "kissed" her (NB that I said "kissed her" not
> "that she kissed someone else")....but perhaps I'm getting too caught up
> in the physical side and am ignoring the underlying emotions to both
> situations? Not sure....
>
> wedding affair" Riser's future plans for the series were not as well
> known. I'm sure in that early season they wouldn't have yet planned the
> route the series was going to take by the time it got to the stage of
> writing/filming the "kiss" episode.
>
> John Mckay
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> The Canadian Broadcast Directory
> and Broadcast Engineering Page:
> http://www.interlog.com/~jmckay
> Southern Ontario Storm Chasers/Canwarn Page:
> http://www.interlog.com/~jmckay/chaser.htm
> --------------------------------------------
Are you saying that women trade sex for love, and men trade love for
sex?
Thomas Kennedy
Being tempted is human. In and of itself there is no fault. But I think
that when Jaime, in whatever way, shape, or form, gave in to Berkus,
that that was the error. Paul had been tempted, but Jaime gave in. That
makes a difference.
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
Didn't a great religious leader say that even "looking at a woman with the
activity in your heart is the same as doing it"?
Mary1
ASU
Chris Sonnack
Oh, goodie, the Return Of my favorite MAY debate (since I have no real
opinion about their having a kid).
Les and Anita Reed (atal...@nternet.net) wrote:
(<grin> Do you guys alternate sentences or entire posts.....?)
>> Just caught the syndicated episode [...] where Jamie reveals to Paul
>> (after he pushes her) that she slept with another guy ...How come Paul
>> seemed so understanding and got over this fairly quickly...and yet
>> "THE KISS" in last years season finale was obviously a much bigger deal
>> ...I would think the "sleeping with someone else" would be much MUCH
>> worse than "the kiss".
As you said yourself, you can't get too upset about your lover's past. In
fact, many //prefer// a person with a bit of a past; they're usually more
knowledgable about sex and relationships, plus they can't get upset over
//your// past....
> First, it occurred outside the confines of the marriage very early in
> the relationship. The man involved was also gone from her life. Second,
> it had nothing to do with his own guilty feelings.
Agreed on both points.
> The KISS occurred some 4 years into the marriage with a man Jamie was in
> contact with every day (an ongoing threat to Paul, in his eyes).
Yep. Plus, Paul was without work at that time and, worse, being supported
by his wife. That can be extremely detrimental to a man's sense of himself.
His overeating was symptomatic and sets up a payoff for later (I continue
to be impressed by some of the //subtlety// of the MAY writing)...
> And I subscribe to the belief that most of the ranting and raving Paul
> did over the KISS had to do with his own feelings of guilt about what he
> almost did himself. He was more angry with himself than with her, IMHO.
I agree it played a part, but disagree about the "most" part of the above.
It certainly strengthened the reaction, but the reaction itself was based
on his four-year //wife// kissing a co-worker. Intelligent and experienced
people may expect and be able to handle a little "shaking out" in the
early stages, but four years into a marriage is a different matter. At that
point, it's suggestive of serious problems and loss.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The brain is nothing without imagination.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Chris Sonnack
Heidi L Sackerson (heid...@themall.net) wrote:
> Berkus kissed HER, not the other way around.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Given a setup like that, I'd probably have
leaned in for a kiss. Watch that scene carefully, she has //plenty//
of time to see what's happening and stop it before it happens. She
chose not to. After a couple seconds of kissing, she realizes what
she's doing and where this will go, and //then// stops it.
The only way you can paint Jaime innocent is if you also paint her as
an idiot. I don't think she is, so I also don't find her very innocent.
> That's why I felt that in many ways, Paul was more wrong than Jamie
> when he considered having an affair with that woman at the Silver
> Sprockets. PAUL considered doing it. JAMIE did not.
If intentions were valid coin, they'd have to hang us all. As the old
saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." IOW, having
//good// intentions does not save you from bad deeds. Likewise, having
bad intentions doesn't condemn you if your //deeds// are good.
In most relationships, there is a clear dividing line, and that line is
based on physical, sexual contact. Jaime did. Paul didn't. Their scene in
the bathroom has J apologizing because she //knows// she "done him wrong".
In a sense, she kicked him when he was down (jobless). And for what?
That she couldn't get pregnant in LESS THAN A YEAR? How incredibly self-
indulgent of her. In truth, I had little sympathy for her "problems".
> That's why I was very disappointed that Paul didn't get his little butt
> kicked, and that everything was made to look as if it was Jamie's fault.
No, he didn't get kicked, but the scenes on the museum steps and the park
show us what was going on in both their minds. And pretty clearly no one
person was at fault.
Chris Sonnack
Jerry Dellinger (jdell...@abelink.com) wrote:
>> Berkus kissed HER, not the other way around.
>
> The kiss was done in two takes. In one of the shots, Jamie leans in
> toward Berkus, thereby in a sense, asking him to kiss her. It is only
> a technicality that he moved the rest of the way toward her.
Yep.
> The problem for Paul, if I read him correctly, is that he didn't
> *know* what happened, how long the kiss was, what her feelings were.
Exactly. He speaks to this point during their scene in the park. He
wants to know, but doesn't want to know, but not knowing lets his
imagination (and he's a //filmmaker//!) run rampant.
I don't know if any of you have been in the situation of having a lover
get involved with someone else, but your imagination is .... awful!
> He did know what he had felt about his walk with with the woman and,
> of course, he felt guilty about it. But he was obsessing about the
> kiss because of the images that kept running through his head.
Yep. And Paul is //much// more "moral" than Jaime (who's more pragmatic).
As he says in the Kareoke bar, he doesn't cross the line. His guilt is
based on a fairly innocent walk plus his own intentions and feelings.
He came as close to the line as he could and it freaked him out.
> Should he have had his butt kicked? 'Course he should. But I don't
> think that he got off easily, though. I felt that as he was walking
> around town dealing with Jamie's indiscretion, he was also having to
> deal with his own. I didn't get the feeling that it was a one-way
> street for him, and his "I'm sorry" at her bedside was as much of an
> admission of guilt as it was an admission that he had treated her
> unfairly.
Agreed. And what a lot was packed into that scene and those few words.
I watched the finale pretty closely when it was repeated recently (to
answer, for myself, some of the issues posed here about it), and decided
it all had (for a sitcom) a ring of truth. But then, I've lived some of
that sort of stuff myself.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A physicist is an atoms way of knowing about atoms.
Chris Sonnack
Thomas Kennedy (tki...@concentric.net) wrote:
> NewsRadio wrote:
>> I guess this kind of dashes the theory I've read in several places
>> that Men are more concerned with their female partners having sex
>> (in an affair) while Women are more concerned with their male partners
>> falling in love with someone else. In other words, Sex is a big deal
>> to Men in a relationship wile Women are more concerned with the
>> emotional aspects of the relationship. These two episodes, when looked
>> at together seem to trash that theory!
I think "seem to" is an operative phrase, since there are a number of other
factors involved. In the early stages of a relationship things are a lot
different than they are four years down the road of marriage. There is an
element of "best behavior" on both sides, so one can see Paul swallowing
his feelings a bit. Also, sexual fidelity is more nebulous before marriage,
but pretty much required absolutely after. Finally, people change, Paul
may have been more self-confident then.
(And, in truth, it's a tv show. Different writers, different seasons. We
don't want to work //too// hard making it all fit...that will give US fits.)
>>> I thought he was plenty angry, but in the end, after hearing Jamie's
>>> explanation, he could understand her position. She loves him and
>>> didn't want to hurt him. That is why she withheld the truth.
>>
>> But thats my point, look at the much more severe response to "The
>> Kiss"???
He had less "right" back then to make a big stink. As her //husband//
he had much, much more "right" to do so.
>> I still feel (personally) that I would be more concerned with finding
>> out that my wife had slept with someone else just before we went from
>> "dating" to "living together/being engaged" than I would with finding
>> out that someone at her work "kissed" her (NB that I said "kissed her"
>> not "that she kissed someone else")...
I think you are "ignoring the underlying emotions" as well as the various
circumstances. Imagine the scene where Jaime and Burkus kiss. Now put
your wife into that scene. Give her Jaime's feelings and expressions and
color in the tenderness of that moment.
Is that //really// not as bad as finding out, after it was done with,
that she'd slept with an old boyfriend while you were dating?
>> Of course, it could be simply that at the time of filming/writing "the
>> wedding affair" Riser's future plans for the series were not as well
>> known.
Almost certainly. Shows evolve.
> Are you saying that women trade sex for love, and men trade love for
> sex?
Like most cliches, it got to be a cliche because there is a strong
//element// of truth to it. (Like it or not, there's a lot of biology
behind those two positions.) But also like most cliches, it's very
much a generality.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it."
David A. Tharp
I don't think that Paul leaving was a power ploy on his part as some have hinted at. I think it was a genuine expression of his emotional confusion. Also
his leaving didn't give men a bad name.This episode is indeed multi-level
but you can read too much into it non-the-less.
Amanda Schumm
Thomas Kennedy <tki...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Being tempted is human. In and of itself there is no fault. But I think
>that when Jaime, in whatever way, shape, or form, gave in to Berkus,
>that that was the error. Paul had been tempted, but Jaime gave in. That
>makes a difference.
She didn't give in!! He kissed her! I see a huge difference between
Berkus kissing Jamie and Paul being tempted by this woman, who, by the
way, stopped Paul from going with her, not the other way around. Paul
WANTED to go...she said no. That's part of the reason that those
episodes disturbed me was because in the end, it was only Jamie's
'mistake' (and I type that very sarcastically) that was addressed...
Paul's near-affair was never even admitted.
Amanda
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
I was also disturbed by the fact that Paul's problem was never addressed.
At least not fully. It gives the impression that the women are always at
fault, but not the males. It just doesn't make sense.
Mary1
ASU
Mark L. Levinson
I think Paul's perspective was that Jamie's overt act was
in a whole other, much worse league then his own controlled
flirting... so much so that in comparison he had nothing
to confess, and no one who merited the confessing-to.
Mark L. Levinson
nosn...@netvision.net.il
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
Yeah, well, I think he still should've confessed and the two of them
would've been able to forgive each other and move on. As it stands obly
one confessed-Jamie.
Mary1
ASU
Glenn Beaumaris
ma...@imap2.asu.edu wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.961002...@general2.asu.edu>...
> Yeah, well, I think he still should've confessed and the two of them
> would've been able to forgive each other and move on. As it stands obly
> one confessed-Jamie.
>
> Mary1
> ASU
>
>
>
Actually Paul did confess that he took a walk with the other woman. I
guess it was just lost in the story because it was made to appear that
Jamie was the bad "guy".
My theory on the whole thing is that Paul was justified in his anger not
because Berkus kissed Jamie, but the fact he realised that his marriage was
falling apart, and the kiss was a big indication. I guess Paul realised
that he could not let Jamie go when he walked into their room after the
engagment party, and walking around New York.
Here in Australia we have just seen the final three epsiodes. Very, very
good.
--
Glenn Beaumaris
(gle...@msn.com)
-----------------
"I Believe in God-After All Helen Hunt exists"
HELEN HUNT:
COOL "The day I got to hand over my tank top to the stunt woman on
Twister."
UNCOOL "Any TV series that has a Very Special Episode."
-----------------
Chris Sonnack
ma...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> I was also disturbed by the fact that Paul's problem was never addressed.
> At least not fully. It gives the impression that the women are always at
> fault, but not the males. It just doesn't make sense.
Aw, don't generalize. It was a story about a single event happening to a
single couple.
And, as is common in MAY, much was left unsaid for the viewer to understand.
(Except many of you apparently don't.)
Paul was in //agony// and tortured by //guilt//. It's very obvious in a
lot of ways. Remember how he was overeating junk food (as far back as
while he was filming WEED)? After his walk with Sara, he started doing
exercises (remember the cute bike teaser ("Because I'm a good lover,
here's a little something for you.")? remember the step-ercise? remember
his talk with Ira?).
He was torn up over mere temptations and taking a walk, only to find out
his wife was involved in a kiss with a co-worker (bringing up a whole
can of worms about work affairs!).
And during their talk in the park, Jaime and Paul both agree that the
whole thing is symptomatic of problems with themselves.
Granted, they didn't paint it all in big letters, but would we really
like the show so much if they did? I sure wouldn't.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fault lies not with our technologies but with our systems.
Chris Sonnack
Amanda Schumm (QPS...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>> Being tempted is human. In and of itself there is no fault. But I think
>> that when Jaime, in whatever way, shape, or form, gave in to Berkus,
>> that that was the error. Paul had been tempted, but Jaime gave in. That
>> makes a difference.
>
> She didn't give in!! He kissed her!
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. After all the discussion we had about this
when it aired the first time, I watched these eps //very// carefully to
see what happened on several counts. As far as the kiss itself, she
clearly was open to it. Burkus leaned in slowly; she had plenty of time
to avoid. And she let the kiss go on for a couple seconds; she didn't
react right away. Or rather, she enjoyed it for a couple seconds before
her higher mind stepped in.
Let's paint it in the best possible light (although, I'm afraid I'm
going to end up turning that light off in a moment): from her point of
view, both her key support people, Fran and Lisa, had let her down,
her husband was unemployed and showing reluctance to find work, and
she was having trouble getting pregnant and had unvoiced fears that her
man would leave her for more, um, fertile pastures.
She, in her mind, //needed// some kind of emotional support and the only
available source was her friendly co-worker. One can understand her point
of view. It was a brief transgression.
However.
I find her incredibly self-indulgent. She'd been trying to get pregnant
for less than a year, a very short time in reality. Fertile time for a
woman is, what, a handful of days per month? If we figure five days and
give her a whole year, that's a mere 60 days. I have a dear friend, now
a mother of three, who tried for //seven// years before child #1.
And your husband out of work? Time to support him, not indulge yourself
in your own concerns. Now, what she did is totally forgivable, but let's
not for a moment imagine that it wasn't very bad.
> I see a huge difference between Berkus kissing Jamie and Paul being
> tempted by this woman,....
Operative word here: "tempted".
There is certainly a difference: Jaime indulged in weak moment of actual
sexual contact with a man not her husband. Paul had ideas and took a walk
with a woman not his wife. Yep. There's a difference alright!
> ...who, by the way, stopped Paul from going with her, not the other way
> around. Paul WANTED to go...she said no.
Nope. This is the other thing I watched very, very carefully. Sara was
playing at reluctance, but would have gone with Paul if Paul had pushed
the issue. Remember what happened in the bar? Sara was going to take a
walk, and Paul invited himself along. She said no. Then SHE CAME BACK
AND SAID YES.
As a woman, you may not have this quirk, but I've dated a lot of woman
who have. It goes something like this: Our society tends to say it's
okay for a man to have sexual desires, but for women, not so much. If
a woman approaches a man, she has some risk of being called loose or
worse. If a man approaches a woman, well, that's the way it's supposed
to work, isn't it. A woman Sara's age would have been raised with these
"values", and may well (even sub-consciously) buy into them.
So Sara (and plenty of women I've known) will put up a show of disinterest
but only so long as the fish doesn't get away. In the bar, when Paul took
her no for an answer, she came back to him and invited him along.
Now, let's take a look at the end of the walk. Again, Sara was going to
take a cab home. Alone. But she didn't get into that cab, did she. They
stood there talking. Then //Paul// has a line about that voice in his
head saying no, and Sara agrees (somewhat saddly!) with him.
Now, I've played that scene and ended up in bed with the woman that
night. Trust me on this, Sara would have slept with Paul if Paul had
pushed the issue. //Paul// chose not to, because, as he said in the
Kareoke bar, he doesn't cross the line. Flirt with it, yes. Come close
to it, yes. Cross it, no.
> That's part of the reason that those episodes disturbed me [...]
> Paul's near-affair was never even admitted.
Because intentions and temptations don't count, or they'd have to hang
us all. Mature people understand that your mind is like your front door.
You can't really control who comes a-knocking. You //can// control who
you let in.
Paul didn't let Sara in (although he let her stand there a while).
Jaime let Burkus in (although she kicked him out right away).
See the difference? Jaime crossed a line our society sees pretty clearly.
Paul didn't.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The solar system is made up of the sun, Jupiter, and some debris.
Mark Levinson
Well, that may be a great religion but it isn't Paul's...
Chris Sonnack
ma...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
> Yeah, well, I think he still should've confessed and the two of them
> would've been able to forgive each other and move on. As it stands obly
> one confessed-Jamie.
Wrong. They both confessed to each other in the bathroom scene. Paul
was having trouble getting his out, Jaime blurted hers out interrupting
him. But he did confess. Remember, she says, "Wow!" And then he goes off
on that, "You don't get a 'Wow'" dialog.
In fact, he's actually the one that started the conversation, so you
could say he confessed first. Hard to know what Jaime would have done
if he hadn't (my guess: laying in bed that night unable to sleep, she'd
wake him up and tell him...I can almost see the scene).
(I loved the part where she brings him a hammer....)
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TODAY'S RULE: No Smoffing or Fnargling!
NewsRadio
Thomas Kennedy wrote:
>
> Are you saying that women trade sex for love, and men trade love for
> sex?
Not exactly, I'm asking (in a very simplified synopsis of the issue) if
these episodes demonstrate that Men are more concerned with sex and Women
are more concerned with Love in a relationship? Much of what you read
these days seems to suggest this, but the way these two episodes handle
the issue, would seem to suggest something different....
Walkm
In article <52u7js$22...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, QPS...@prodigy.com
(Amanda Schumm) writes:
>That's part of the reason that those
>episodes disturbed me was because in the end, it was only Jamie's
>'mistake' (and I type that very sarcastically) that was addressed...
>Paul's near-affair was never even admitted.
This is only a tv show but it's interesting how effective the show
is at getting us caring about these characters. Here's my thoughts on
what's so interesting about the thread discussed here.
Jamie not only let Doug kiss her, she put her arm up and held Doug
during the kiss...definitely more damaging than letting someone kiss you.
Jamie tells Paul and he "runs" away, so to speak, probably out of
guilt for nearly having an affair. The woman didn't say no to Paul, he
stopped because that "little voice in my head" stopped him. She agreed
after he told her that. (I just reviewed the show again).
Paul did admit his near-affair to Jamie. Why you think this wasn't
admitted is beyond me. It's obvious that letting someone kiss you & the
way Jamie touched Doug is stepping over the line. Paul came up to the
line but didn't step over it.
I think it'd be interesting to see if any references are made to this
in later shows this season.
Michael
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
Amanda, you took the words right outta my mouth when you said that
"ultimately, J was made to look like the bad guy". As J said, in the park,
"it took both of us to wreck this relationship, and it may take both of us
to fix it".
Mary1
ASU
On 7 Oct 1996, Amanda Schumm wrote:
> wa...@aol.com (Walkm) wrote:
>
> Paul did admit his near-affair to Jamie. Why you think this wasn't
> >admitted is beyond me.
>
> It may have been admitted, but the way the episode was handled, it was
> written so that Jamie was made to look like the ultimate bad guy. She
> never got the chance to be angry at Paul and she had good reason to be
> angry. The episode was very one-sided, if you ask me.
>
> Amanda
>
>
>
Amanda Schumm
David A. Tharp
Being the sensitive 90s kind of guy that I am I must concur with Ms.
Schumm & Ms.McCool.The show was indeed unfair to Jamie. Paul had X amount
of blame for what happened.
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
At least you admit it that both are at fault, not just J.
Mary1
ASU
Sumo Rabbit
[Previous posts snipped to conserve bandwidth]
a) Paul *did* confess to Jamie about his "walk". In fact, he was in
the MIDDLE of the confession when she blurted out "I kissed Doug
Burkis" And after he had finished, we had the whole "Wow" "Wow? No,
you don't get to say 'wow'" conversation which triggered the whole
walk-through-the-apartment arguement.
b) If Jamie had, in fact, wanted nothing to do with the kiss, would
she have said "*I* kissed..." rather than blurting out "Doug Burkis
kissed me today."? Even if she didn't have time to react, she
certainly had time to figure out what was going on during what, a 3 or
4 second kiss?
c) I think the show has already dealt with Paul toeing the line and
Jamie knowing that Paul flirts with the line (Remember the Virtual
Reality Machine?). I'd almost consider having a VR fantasyfest with
Christie Brinkley a worse offense than taking a "Walk" with a woman
whom you've already told that you won't "Cross the line". Remember
that whatever he wanted, or what he desired, he did NOT go with the
woman. Even if he kept throwing out hints that he wanted to, he also
followed them with little disclaimers, or "Little voices". True, she
was the one who finally closed the door at the end, but would it have
ended the same way if he did NOT mention the little voice at the end?
Either way, they've gotten over it. Can't we? ;)
--> Andy
btw: is anyone else miffed that we're not getting any MAY lately?
(well, other than the syndicated shows) Hasn't NBC toyed with the show
enough in past seasons??
***
The above address has been altered because I *hate* SpamBots
harvesting USENET for Unsolicited Commercial Email. Remove
the "*"s to contact me.
David A. Tharp
Fairness is my middle name. David Fairness Tharp. Nuff said. Your it!!!
Chris Sonnack
Walkm (wa...@aol.com) wrote:
>> That's part of the reason that those
> > episodes disturbed me was because in the end, it was only Jamie's
>> 'mistake' (and I type that very sarcastically) that was addressed...
>> Paul's near-affair was never even admitted.
>
> This is only a tv show but it's interesting how effective the show
> is at getting us caring about these characters.
Due, in part, I think, to the depth of the characters. Also, the writing
and directing has them //responding// to what the others say, not just
tossing out old gags and pretending normal people always talk that way.
If Paul says something funny, other people laugh. If he says something
lame, other people groan (or whatever). Few comedys play it like this.
M*A*S*H is one that stood out for being human like MAY.
> Jamie not only let Doug kiss her, she put her arm up and held Doug
> during the kiss...definitely more damaging than letting someone kiss you.
We certainly agree on that, but we seem to be in the minority!
> Jamie tells Paul and he "runs" away, so to speak, probably out of
> guilt for nearly having an affair.
In part, but also because, I think, he was afraid of saying too much or
reacting too strongly. There are things that can never be unsaid or undone,
and you have to be careful about such in any relationship. He knew that he
needed to get away and process this new information.
> The woman didn't say no to Paul, he stopped because that "little voice
> in my head" stopped him. She agreed after he told her that.
Yep.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
ma...@imap2.asu.edu
Sometimes, but not always! NNNYI!
Mary1
ASU
On 7 Oct 1996, David A. Tharp wrote:
Chris Sonnack
Amanda Schumm (QPS...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>> Paul did admit his near-affair to Jamie. Why you think this wasn't
>> admitted is beyond me.
>
> It may have been admitted, but the way the episode was handled, it was
> written so that Jamie was made to look like the ultimate bad guy.
Disagree (your bias is showing). I'm one of the few here who //do// see
Jamie as having a (somewhat) worse transgression, but I still don't
think she was "the ultimate bad guy." I never got that feeling.
In fact, the scene in the park makes it pretty clear what's //really//
going on. Remember, MAY is often subtle. It's not all painted in big
black and white letters for you, and when it is, they're usually
deliberately mis-leading you.
> She never got the chance to be angry at Paul and she had good reason to
> be angry.
For what? Taking a walk? Having //thoughts//?? Gimme a break. She's got
no case (well, hardly any case).
And you're still wrong. She was plenty angry in that great scene on the
steps. Open your mind and watch the episode again.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The meek will inherit the Earth..... The rest of us will go to the stars.
Amanda Schumm
cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) wrote:
>
>Amanda Schumm (QPS...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>
>>> Paul did admit his near-affair to Jamie. Why you think this wasn't
>>> admitted is beyond me.
>>
>> It may have been admitted, but the way the episode was handled, it was
>> written so that Jamie was made to look like the ultimate bad guy.
>
>Disagree (your bias is showing). I'm one of the few here who //do// see
>Jamie as having a (somewhat) worse transgression, but I still don't
>think she was "the ultimate bad guy." I never got that feeling.
I have no bias...this is just my take on the episode. Throughout the
entire episode, there was an underlying "Paul is right, Jamie's wrong"
attitude. I'm not saying what Jamie did was completely blameless, but
she would NOT have instigated that kiss....technically, she was taken off
guard.
>In fact, the scene in the park makes it pretty clear what's //really//
>going on. Remember, MAY is often subtle. It's not all painted in big
>black and white letters for you, and when it is, they're usually
>deliberately mis-leading you.
>
>> She never got the chance to be angry at Paul and she had good reason
to
>> be angry.
>
>For what? Taking a walk? Having //thoughts//?? Gimme a break. She's got
>no case (well, hardly any case).
>
>And you're still wrong. She was plenty angry in that great scene on the
>steps. Open your mind and watch the episode again.
>
She was angry because Paul was being a jackass. And he WAS being a
jackass. She never got a chance to show emotion about the "walk"...(And
excuse me, 'Wow' does not constitute emotion, IMO.)
BTW, I have watched this episode at least six times and I'm not going to
change my mind. Why don't you open YOUR mind and realize people have
varied opinions...can you not accept one that doesn't coincide with yours?
Amanda
Chris Sonnack
fro...@netcom.com wrote:
>> I'm one of the few here who //do// see Jamie as having a (somewhat)
>> worse transgression, but I still don't think she was "the ultimate
>> bad guy." I never got that feeling.
>>
>> In fact, the scene in the park makes it pretty clear what's //really//
>> going on.
>
> Okay, before I start another argument...Are you saying that Jamie
> is more at fault then Paul? I just want to be absoulutely positive that
> you're convinced that Jamie deserved to be blamed more than Paul?
Which part of what I said makes it less than absolutely positive that:
1) Jamie committed a (slightly) worse sin,
2) Jamie is (somewhat) more at fault.
Let's review:
-Jamie had actual sexual contact with a man not her husband,
Paul took a walk and had thoughts with a woman not his wife.
-Both confessed to each other...but PAUL started the conversation.
-Both got to express anger.
-Both got to express the real source of their problem...but Jamie
was the one who didn't have the faith Paul would stay with her.
-Both apologized...but Jamie did it during an argument, Paul did
it in a tender moment.
Okay, your turn... ;->
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed.
Unknown
We're not getting over this for three reasons:
1) It's fascinating!
2) It's all new to the Austrailians!
3) It's an interesting philosophical discussion between those of the male
persuasion and those who are right ...
...and that's a gross generalization, I know, but I simply couldn't help
it!
Anyhow, to the comment about Jamie said "I kissed Doug Berkus," instead of
something like, "Berkus kissed me." IMHO, she tells it this way because
she's feeling really, really guilty. She knows she's gonna get a WOW, and
she thinks she deserves it. She's stating the worst case scenario, because
that's what she believes this is. It's soooo in her character, to state the
obvious in the most dramatic way, even if it reflects poorly upon herself.
My husband is like this, too. He'll call me and say, "I got in a wreck,"
and I'm suddenly shouting "Where are you? Are you OK? Are you hurt?" And
it turns out he hit a curb hard and bend his wheel rim. You know what I
mean? He was as mad at himself as if he'd been in a wreck, but all he did
was bump a curb.
BTW, my entry (plunge?) into this group is a little surreal to me. Under
normal circumstances I don't watch TV this way. This MAY may be the only
show that has or will ever capture my imagination in such a manner.
Mark Levinson
Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
worse?
Mark L. Levinson
nosn...@netvision.net.il
Lisa S. Murphy
Hey, Emily! You've caught the MAY disease! Congratulations, this is
great news!
(Then Mark Levinson said...)
> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
> behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
> worse?
This is an interesting question. I was wondering how the differences of
opinion stacked up. It seems to be evenly divided (just on first
impressions). Anyone for taking a survey?
I'll do it, if y'all would be interested. E-mail me or post in this
thread and I'll keep track of the responses. Respond through, say, next
Monday (the 21st) - and then we'll see!
Regards,
L i s a S. M u r p h y (ozad...@murmur.com)
Proud "inaugural international member" of the Carlton Football Club.
Proud supporter of the Hoodoo Gurus.
Bob Campbell
ozad...@murmur.com (Lisa S. Murphy) wrote:
>> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
>> behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
>> worse?
>This is an interesting question. I was wondering how the differences of
>opinion stacked up. It seems to be evenly divided (just on first
>impressions). Anyone for taking a survey?
>L i s a S. M u r p h y (ozad...@murmur.com)
>Proud "inaugural international member" of the Carlton Football Club.
>Proud supporter of the Hoodoo Gurus.
Hi Lisa,
When I first saw the ep. I thought Paul was being W-AAAA-Y more a jerk
than Jamie. My wife and I discussed the thing and she pointed out
some ways that Jamie transgressed (working with Berkus everyday, Paul
not being able to see the context and having her just come out and say
*she* kissed him etc.) so I came a bit in the other direction. After
more reflection, I still think Paul was more in the wrong, but I've
almost exhausted my energy for this question, so anyways.
BTW - Silly me, I thought last night would be baseball (or something)
until about oh, 7:45. Can anybody fill me in on what happened? Has
Lisa resurfaced yet? I've been enjoying syndication and cursing my
news server!
Salut!
Bob
John Birmingham
In article <326131...@netvision.net.il>, Mark Levinson
<nosn...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
> behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
> worse?
No. I definitely thought Paul behaved worse.
Cheers
JOHN Birmingham
Chris Sonnack
Mark Levinson (nosn...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
> behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
> worse?
No, because it doesn't appear to break down that way. What it appears to
be is that a few men (and a couple women) are ready, willing and able to
defend Paul and not so willing, ready and able to so completely overlook
Jamie's action as most of the group here.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If two million people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
Chris Sonnack
Emily () wrote:
> Anyhow, to the comment about Jamie said "I kissed Doug Berkus," instead of
> something like, "Berkus kissed me." IMHO, she tells it this way because
> she's feeling really, really guilty. She knows she's gonna get a WOW, and
> she thinks she deserves it.
And...she //knows// she deserves it. Remember all the "I'm sorry"s that
she says during that scene?
You say more in your other post; I'll meet you there...
> BTW, my entry (plunge?) into this group is a little surreal to me.
Welcome!! ;->
> Under normal circumstances I don't watch TV this way. This MAY may be
> the only show that has or will ever capture my imagination in such a
> manner.
It's one of the few shows on tv //worth// this level of interest.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sculpture is what you bump into when you back up to look at a painting.
Walkm
Here's more fuel for the fire.....especially for everyone who
thinks Paul is to blame and Jamie is innocent:
Compare how Jamie reacted during the kiss with Doug to how Paul
reacted when Ira's ex kissed him in Vegas. He acted more like someone does
when they are caught off-guard. Jamie acts like someone savoring the
moment.
Michael
Chris Sonnack
Walkm (wa...@aol.com) wrote:
> Compare how Jamie reacted during the kiss with Doug to how Paul
> reacted when Ira's ex kissed him in Vegas. He acted more like someone does
> when they are caught off-guard. Jamie acts like someone savoring the
> moment.
Ah, yes. You're right. Good call.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TODAY'S RULE: No Smoffing or Fnargling!
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Vikas Sinha
cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) wrote:
>Mark Levinson (nosn...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
>
>> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie
>> behaved worse and all the women believe Paul behaved
>> worse?
>
>No, because it doesn't appear to break down that way. What it appears to
>be is that a few men (and a couple women) are ready, willing and able to
>defend Paul and not so willing, ready and able to so completely overlook
>Jamie's action as most of the group here.
Come on now, Chris. "Completely overlook"? Methinks thou art overstating
thy case... ;)
-vik
>--
>Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
>Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"If two million people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
>
Chris Sonnack
Vikas Sinha (vks...@cybernet.com) wrote:
>>> Can we simply agree that all the men believe Jamie behaved worse and
>>> all the women believe Paul behaved worse?
>>
>> No, because it doesn't appear to break down that way. What it appears
>> to be is that a few men (and a couple women) are ready, willing and
>> able to defend Paul and not so willing, ready and able to so completely
>> overlook Jamie's action as most of the group here.
>
> Come on now, Chris. "Completely overlook"? Methinks thou art overstating
> thy case... ;)
<grin> Yathinks? Mayhaps.
It sure //feels// that way sometimes. I suspect most people here have
little, or likely no, experience with near brushes with "infidelity",
so are seeing it from an idealist, theoretical point of view. But in
my long and nasty life, I've sat in all three chairs (the "cheator",
the "cheatee" and "the other man" (yeah, I've //been// Doug Burkis!..
in fact, that's been the most common occurance for me)).
It was interesting to notice in last night's syndic (the one with the
taupe shirt and "Y. Ono") once again Jamie's rather loose grasp of
morals. First she "steals" a shirt, then she //LIES// to her husband
on a //vitally// important night to him about the shirt.
(Of course, if she hadn't, we wouldn't have gotten to see her undress
in the cab, so silver lining. <leer>)
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it."
Jennifer Stubbington
I know this is waaaaayyy after the fact but I just binged this and saw the finale for the first time and it really bugged me. My problem is as a few others said that Jaime was kissed by someone and momentarily went with it and got most of the blame. Paul actually invited a woman to first share a cab (at which point she's showing zero interest in him), then when she said no invited himself on her walk, then when the walk was over suggested they go to her place. His was not momentary, he pursued this woman for at least an hour. And since some seem to think he didn't follow through, that the woman's refusal wasn't genuine, here's the transcript:
-She waves for a cab
Paul: So what happens now, you actually gonna go home?
Her: Yes, shouldn't you?
Paul: I should, yeah I should, I just don't particularly want to.
Her: Well, what then?
Her: We can't, can we.
Paul: No, we really can't.
Her: Maybe some other time, NO, maybe some other life.
Paul: I've got a little voice inside my head I just wanna kill.
Her: It's really loud, I can hear it too.
-Cab pulls up. Paul opens the door.
Her: I'm going to get into the cab.
Paul: Please.
Her: It was really nice meeting you.
Paul: Nice to meet you.
Now, would she have said yes if he'd pushed? Likely, but that is coercion and as discussed Paul has always been a moral character (to excess and prudishness at times) so he would be unlikely to try and pressure a woman into sex just because he wanted it. He's also always been a pretty passive person, does not like conflict, and has never had tons of confidence in his skills with women, so it's not surprising he didn't want to push at it. That in my mind does not remove the fact that he brought it up and would have gone with her if she'd said yes when he first suggested it.
So, as far as I'm concerned this means that Jaime - was subjected to a kiss and let it go on for about 6 seconds, maybe even enjoyed it for two or three; Paul - flirted with, followed, engaged in what was meant to be an intimate activity (the walk), and then suggested going to her place with a woman all spanning at least an hour. Jaime's was passive (with allowances for her responding) and she stopped it, even if not right away, Paul's was with intent and initiated and sustained by him.
Now the conversation about the indiscretions. Some in this thread said Paul brought it up which is wrong. Jaime came home from work and the very first thing she did after giving him the water she bought for him was tell him they had to talk. He was troubled by that but agreed and asked if he could go first which she agreed to. She brought it up first. If she hadn't interrupted him because he was waffling so much he may have told her about his intention to go home with that woman but he never did, instead it became just the walk, not the suggestion that he go home with her. By contrast, Paul sat on this information for 6 weeks and then didn't even fully confess. I kept expecting him to own up to it at some point but he never did.
So who was wrong? Both of them obviously. But there was a lot that Paul did that if I was in a relationship with either of them I'd be much more upset with him and what he did vs. her and what she did.