I want to marry Harry, does he look like the Prince? Would you buy it?

[McLeanspider]

[video=youtube;MwhHVNuHdjM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhHVNuHdjM

 

 

http://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/harry-styles-fake-show-lead.jpg?w=600

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/20874107/5958833-large.jpg

[adannyboy]

Sometimes he looks more like Harry than others - e.g. in the first linked pic vs. the second one. And while they look similar enough that I would do either, I'm positive I could tell them apart in person. The contestants on the show seem to be another story... As we say down here in Texas... "Bless their hearts".

 

+1

[McLeanspider]

Sometimes he looks more like Harry than others - e.g. in the first linked pic vs. the second one. And while they look similar enough that I would do either, I'm positive I could tell them apart in person. The contestants on the show seem to be another story... As we say down here in Texas... "Bless their hearts".

 

Bless their hearts! I love it, touche!

 

http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2014/1/4/thumb-1388872916965-bless_your_heart_demotivational_poster_1281584957.jpg

[+ purplekow]

Lets face it, these girls were not picked to be on this show for their keen insight and calculating mentation nor for their worldliness and sophistication. They were picked because they could be convinced that they will get a chance to marry the man fourth in line to the throne of England by going on a game show. I have not seen the show but I would imagine that at some point they will have the girls met the queen. That might be worth a few snickers at the ladies' expense but otherwise it is hard to imagine who is less worldly, the contestants or the hundreds of thousand Americans watching this drivel for entertainment.

[+ Gar1eth]

Lets face it, these girls were not picked to be on this show for their keen insight and calculating mentation nor for their worldliness and sophistication. They were picked because they could be convinced that they will get a chance to marry the man fourth in line to the throne of England by going on a game show. I have not seen the show but I would imagine that at some point they will have the girls met the queen. That might be worth a few snickers at the ladies' expense but otherwise it is hard to imagine who is less worldly, the contestants or the hundreds of thousand Americans watching this drivel for entertainment.

 

I hope the show dies a quick death like the one with the fake millionaire. I have never seen the show and don't plan to. But I think it's mean dirty trick and not right to con these women no matter what their IQs are.

 

 

 

Gman

[+ Charlie]

I agree that the whole premise of the show seems unusually mean-spirited.

[+ FreshFluff]

I hope the show dies a quick death like the one with the fake millionaire. I have never seen the show and don't plan to. But I think it's mean dirty trick and not right to con these women no matter what their IQs are.

 

It's yet another double standard. Men are expected to be shallow in how they choose women, so you'd never have a show about men being fooled into thinking they were pursuing a supermodel. But women's feelings about men aren't supposed to be affected by status (e.g. prince, famous actor, CEO), and any girl who dares to be so shallow deserves to be tricked.

[+ Gar1eth]

It's yet another double standard. Men are expected to be shallow in how they choose women, so you'd never have a show about men being fooled into thinking they were pursuing a supermodel.

 

But if a woman were supposed to be a super model even if she weren't, for the purpose of the show, she's going to have to be beautiful. So most straight guys- of the kind of guys who would want to be on the show, aren't going to actually care if she is really a super model.

 

Gman

[McLeanspider]

But if a woman were supposed to be a super model even if she weren't, for the purpose of the show, she's going to have to be beautiful. So most straight guys- of the kind of guys who would want to be on the show, aren't going to actually care if she is really a super model.

 

Gman

 

I understand where you're going, but the main idea of this show is the selling of the "Princess fantasy" and how dumb and gullible American women could be.

 

there was a similar show about Europan women who didn't know about Joe Millionaire, falling in love with an American who was worth a lot of money.

[+ Funguy]

I understand where you're going, but the main idea of this show is the selling of the "Princess fantasy" and how dumb and gullible American women could be.

 

Unfortunately, back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European (esp. British) aristocracy was broke and they turned to the U.S. for women with money to infuse into their ailing "highnesses." The American women of that period, too, had their Princess fantasy but it was very likely to come true!

[+ FreshFluff]

But if a woman were supposed to be a super model even if she weren't, for the purpose of the show, she's going to have to be beautiful. So most straight guys- of the kind of guys who would want to be on the show, aren't going to actually care if she is really a super model.

 

You are correct. The double standard I'm referring to is that caring about looks is no more or less shallow than caring about status (being a prince). Both are inherited traits.

 

 

I understand where you're going, but the main idea of this show is the selling of the "Princess fantasy" and how dumb and gullible American women could be.

 

How about American men's "Every man with a good sense of humor can land a girl who is out of his league" fantasy. That fantasy is actually perpetuated, not mocked, by shows like Beauty and the Beast.

 

I really think gay men are more rational and have less of a sense of entitlement than straight men or maybe even straight women. We all want good looking partners, but gay men don't (or at least don't appear to) feel entitled to a supermodel no matter what they look like.

[Steven_Draker]

I agree that the whole premise of the show seems unusually mean-spirited.

 

Quite mean-spirited, indeed.

 

This type of reality TV exploits the participants and the viewers as a horrible way to boost network ratings and profits.

 

Feh!

[whipped guy]

And then there's always the chance the contestants are "in on" what's really going on and are just playing along or are playing the parts assigned to them. Sometimes I think the viewers are more gullible than the cast of shows like this. Does anyone REALLY believe the Housewives of [Wherever] is not totally scripted, and the actors are just having candid, heart-to-heart conversations with one another completely oblivious to the camera, lighting, and sound people hovering over them? And that sometimes it doesn't require multiple "takes" of the same scene to get it just right??

EXACTLY!!!! It's "reality" that's in indeed part scripted, and when the reality does not mirror the script multiple takes are the rule of the day. Plus, the inducers... Oops I meant producers...have been known to stir up a hornets nest or two among the participants so as to keep things "interesting"...

 

That's why why I gave up on these silly shows long ago... Unless a hot guy or two (showing a significant amount of skin) is part of the deal... and even then not on a regular basis...

[McLeanspider]

Unfortunately, back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European (esp. British) aristocracy was broke and they turned to the U.S. for women with money to infuse into their ailing "highnesses." The American women of that period, too, had their Princess fantasy but it was very likely to come true!

 

Yes, thanks for contributing to the forum with that historical fact, Churchill's mother was an American heiress.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill

 

Let's check this article too, very interesting.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2211179/Downton-Abbey-prequel-How-Americas-Dollar-Princesses-married-crumbling-British-aristocracy.html

[+ FreshFluff]

While I agree the concept of the show is mean-spirited and cringe-worthy, I've got a funny feeling that very few, if any, of the women on the show just wandered off the farm in Kansas and somehow found themselves on the set of "I Want to Marry Harry." My guess is that most of them are aspiring actresses, and even if they had been told in advance that the whole concept of the show "is to entertain the audience by making you look gullible and not so bright" most of them would still have jumped at the chance to be on a prime-time TV show. Two years from now, nobody will remember what the show was about, and the contestants will be able to say they appeared on a major network reality show. (Recall that's how Steven Daigle launched his porn career!).

 

Yes, that's a good point. Many of the people who sign up for these reality shows are doing so to become actresses or at least low level celebrities.

[Steven_Draker]

Many of the people who sign up for these reality shows are doing so to become actresses or at least low level celebrities.

 

Alas, Fluff, 98% of the guys and gals who have participated in some reality TV, won't become a big name actor/actress or a Hollywood celebrity. Very few succeed and once the machine chew them up and spit them out, they're quickly "forgotten".

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cOeioUxikGk/UDO70oj5V2I/AAAAAAAAAF0/9AQwlWm1r30/s1600/610x354-15-mins-fame.jpg

 

In France there's a show that gives a second opportunity to ex-reality TV participants, aspiring to become a big name. It's called "Les Anges de la téléréalité": The Angels of Reality TV. There are many Angels out there still hoping ...

 

Sometimes I think the viewers are more gullible than the cast of shows like this. Does anyone REALLY believe the Housewives of [Wherever] is not totally scripted, and the actors are just having candid, heart-to-heart conversations with one another completely oblivious to the camera, lighting, and sound people hovering over them? And that sometimes it doesn't require multiple "takes" of the same scene to get it just right??

 

I don't think that viewers are that gullible. It's not a secret anymore that Reality TV is scripted. Once a new format is tested and it's successful, the show is sold around the world to various TV channels. You can find the same dialogues, same interactions, same "intrigues" in the American, British, Australian, French, etc. version of the "reality" TV show. Of course it scripted, otherwise each version would have been unique. People are not gullible, but don't sell and advertise these shows as "reality", just call them FICTION.

[+ Gar1eth]

I really think gay men are more rational and have less of a sense of entitlement than straight men or maybe even straight women. We all want good looking partners, but gay men don't (or at least don't appear to) feel entitled to a supermodel no matter what they look like.

 

Au contraire Fresh. It's no fun being a fairly unattractive gay man. While I think I'm cute enough that if I were straight, I could find a nice middle-aged woman who might be interested. But in our gay culture, especially our gay youth-oriented culture- I'm nowhere near handsome enough for the majority out there.

 

Gman

[McLeanspider]

Au contraire Fresh. It's no fun being a fairly unattractive gay man. While I think I'm cute enough that if I were straight, I could find a nice middle-aged woman who might be interested. But in our gay culture, especially our gay youth-oriented culture- I'm nowhere near handsome enough for the majority out there.

 

Gman

 

Nowadays, unless a woman is a supermodel and wealthy, is an up the hill battle for her to get a husband (exception Alaska where men outnumber women)

 

I don't know who came out with that idea of straight people having sex on the 1st or 2nd date, but she didn't know that guys care about getting off and I'm sure many women are already regretting it because they're becoming doormats and still not enough for the guy to commit.

 

I know several guys like you who and they LOVE it... they have a lot of women available and they are all desperate for a guy to show off and let the world know they're "keepers" and not just "dumpees", some divorcee but many of them in their 50's and never landed a guy for marriage.

 

http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Untitled18.jpeg

[+ FreshFluff]

Nowadays, unless a woman is a supermodel and wealthy, is an up the hill battle for her to get a husband (exception Alaska where men outnumber women)

 

My experience is a bit different. Even in a large metropolis, it's pretty easy for a woman to date and get married, if marriage if and of itself is her goal. But if you're educated and want something more than an equal, it's tough.

 

Looks are indeed a major factor, but just as important is a certain x factor, an ability to make a man feel like a king. It's hard to do if you didn't learn it growing up. Being wealthy, on the other hand, hurts a woman rather than helps, because it intimidates the guy.

 

I don't know who came out with that idea of straight people having sex on the 1st or 2nd date, but she didn't know that guys care about getting off and I'm sure many women are already regretting it because they're becoming doormats and still not enough for the guy to commit.

 

Yes, this was not a positive development for women. The problem is that bucking the trend doesn't work either. Men, especially in large cities, expect sex within the first few dates. If a woman doesn't it up within the first month, they start whining that "this reminds me of high school" and their friends tell them to move on, which they eventually do.

[+ Gar1eth]

Nowadays, unless a woman is a supermodel and wealthy, is an up the hill battle for her to get a husband (exception Alaska where men outnumber women)

 

I don't know who came out with that idea of straight people having sex on the 1st or 2nd date, but she didn't know that guys care about getting off and I'm sure many women are already regretting it because they're becoming doormats and still not enough for the guy to commit.

 

I know several guys like you who and they LOVE it... they have a lot of women available and they are all desperate for a guy to show off and let the world know they're "keepers" and not just "dumpees", some divorcee but many of them in their 50's and never landed a guy for marriage.

 

http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Untitled18.jpeg

 

I don't really understand what you are saying.

 

First you say women don't know that guys want to 'get off'. Since when don't women know this?

 

And what exactly do guys love- having lots of dates with middle- aged women with no sex because women no longer want to feel used or are the guys loving using women?

 

And then of course none of this really applies to me in the end. I did say 'if I were straight....' But the operative word was 'if'. I'm actually gay.

 

Gman

[+ FreshFluff]

IFirst you say women don't know that guys want to 'get off'. Since when don't women know this?

 

Many women hope that sex is a tacit way of making a commitment. To quote an old song: Tonight with words unspoken/You say that I'm the only one. And like I said above, what's the alternative? Most men today will not be willing to commit in order to have sex, so those who wait weed out a lot of men.

 

And what exactly do guys love- having lots of dates with middle- aged women with no sex because women no longer want to feel used or are the guys loving using women?

 

I can't speak for McLean, but I'm guessing he's saying that a successful 50-60something guy can get his pick of women up to 25 years younger--and can get laid pretty quickly too.

 

Remember that guy who took me to Nantucket last summer, the one who might be gay and who liked to sing "I feel pretty, oh so pretty"? He's in his mid 50s and wealthy, and he can pretty much date anyone he wants. Women are apparently so eager to have sex with him that he has to give them a speech about how he doesn't have sex until he's in love.

[+ quoththeraven]

What everyone else describes as the norm between men and women is not my experience, nor would I ever want it to be. That's not to deny your experience or observations, just that they're not mine nor are they what I see. What I see is not as unequal or as fixated on status and looks as depicted above, which sounds more like the men-as-pursuers, women-as-gatekeepers sexual culture that I'd hope was passing into history. (Though having been in a LTR myself, as are most of the people I know, probably affects what it is that I see and experience.)

 

As for sex vs. love: there are men and women who draw the line in different places. Not all women have sex looking for or expecting emotional commitment; not all men want sex without it. Sometimes where the line gets drawn depends on the people involved and the circumstances. Also, the role of friendship seems to get left out of the equation entirely; it's as if sex and emotional commitment (or romance, to use the old-fashioned term for it) are the only options. They aren't. Relationships can involve any combination of the three, and whether they work for the people involved is up to them.

 

Bottom line is that I'd like to "queer" (I'm using scare quotes because I know some find the term offensive) societal attitudes toward sexuality to the point where those attitudes are no longer heteronormative and oppressive. While the harm manifests in different ways, that oppression hurts everyone, not just those who are "different." By "different," I mean everyone outside the circle of heteronormativity, such as those who are non-monogamous/polyamorous, anyone into BDSM, pansexuals/bisexuals, trans people, asexuals, and genderqueer/genderfluid and agender people (not necessarily an exhaustive list), as well as gay men and lesbians. Within the context of relationships between consenting adults that don't cause lasting injury or trauma, live and let live. Then maybe we can stop talking about this kind of sexual culture among straights that I'd hoped was passing away (and that is mostly reported here based on observation and hearsay) as if it were the norm or some kind of culturally mandated special snowflake.

[+ FreshFluff]

I agree that the reality shows depict the very traditional end of the straight relationship spectrum and don't reflect most relationships in the real world. From my own observations--both in my own relationships and those of my students-- I think the man=pursuer-woman=gatekeeper model* is still around, though it's less strong among the Millennials than those who are thirty and up.

 

I disagree that the fact that some (or even most) heterosexual people are in man=pursuer relationships is oppressive to others. In the Western world, we're all free to find relationships that fit our preferences, whether that's a traditional relationship or something more progressive and equal. As for heteronormativity, GLBT relationships have very different traditions and mores that straight people won't change.

 

In any case, whether the man=pursuer model is good or bad, I doubt that anyone can make it "fade into the past." Our preferences are partially the result of millennia of evolution. As a result, I think it would be tough to shoehorn relationships into a model we think is more equitable.

[+ azdr0710]

really, really nice to have FF's practical comments here.....very glad FF and tyro are on board here!

[BSR]

I am baffled by the popularity of reality TV. To clarify, I see talent competitions like America's Got Talent, So You Think You Can Dance, or The Voice as quite different from reality shows. I can understand why people watch those programs because many of the contestants are indeed quite talented, and the singing/dancing/whatever else (like ventriloquist AGT winner Terry Fator) they showcase really is entertaining. I'm talking about the shows like Jersey Shore, the Kardashians, or this I Want To Marry Harry. If you know anyone who's worked on a reality TV set, they'll tell you that so much of what ends up on the show is scripted. The character conflicts, the screaming matches, the one-liners, all of it is fed to the cast. And even if you don't know anyone on the production crew, it would be so damn obvious that this so-called "reality" television is completely fake.

 

The counter-argument is that reality TV has replaced soap operas, which were all fake and scripted as well. True enough, but soaps never pretended to be anything other than that. The shows never claimed that the actors were just plain folk or that the dialogue was spontaneous and organic. The soaps told stories, granted, often ridiculous, unrealistic, histrionic, or impossibly melodramatic stories, but they were vehicles for story-telling. And if you got drawn in by the stories they told, you tuned in daily or weekly, even if you were ashamed to admit it. The phenomenon of reality TV, on the other hand, is every bit as staged and scripted as the soaps, except that they pretend to be real-life, organic peeks into the lives of real people. If you tell me a story about a tragic romance, with the preface that the story is fictional but a great tale nonetheless, I might buy into the story if it reveals an underlying truth, even though the people & events might be fictional. But if you insist that everything you're saying really happened, when it's so pathetically obvious that it's all a steaming pile of cow plop, I have no interest. Do whatever you want to do, whether it's producing a TV show or writing an escort ad, as long as you're honest about it.

 

Is anyone out there a big fan of reality TV? and is willing to admit it?? If so, can you help me understand what it is about reality television that makes you a fan? Granted, it was a very guilty pleasure, but I was a huge fan of Dynasty back in the day. I loved the melodrama, the cattiness, the vicarious thrill of living the lifestyles of the rich & famous. All of it played to my inner (and at the time still closeted) drama queen, and my inner drama queen was absolutely addicted to Dynasty's siren song. What then, pray tell, makes you a fan of Joe Millionaire, I Want To Marry Harry, or The Bachelor? And how is it that the fundamental dishonesty of so-called reality shows doesn't bother you??