Re: Nick Viall - Bachelorette 10 - Discussion - Thread #6

[Catdwoman50]

^^^ It's actually a great message and discussion to come out of a reality show. Not the same as Sean's, but perhaps more compelling since the majority of people aren't abstaining from sex.

I agree, if we focus more on the message versus the players, the discussion is actually controversial (I think polarizing is too negative, there are gray areas).  As some have alluded, both parties did not have the same understanding of sex and love, or the degree of expression of sex in context of love.  The reaction of people around this controversy is fascinating and again a product of our own belief systems.  Here's mine: I believe the reason this topic is still discussed is due to the reversal of roles between a man and a woman.  I believe it's ok to discuss this topic openly and there's no need for excuses from either party (yes you may label me a feminist as I believe in gender equality).  Why should Andi need an excuse to have sex with Nick if she didn't love him?  Why should Nick feel ashamed to ask why have sex without love? Why is the topic of sex so huhumm for this reality show?  Isn't the concept of the show about fast dating and elimination? In context of the message, neither of them made mistakes, I still think the delivery on both their parts could have been improved.  Albeit we don't seem to look at sex the same way, it should be OK for a lead to use compatibility after the cameras roll away as a success criteria for a relationship.  It opens a good debate on what we accept and tolerate as individuals and as a society.

[Kashathediva]

Nick is not calling her out on the act(of sex), but her intentions behind the act and how she handled the consequences of the act. This expert of his blog says it all IMO:

To me what’s most important is that the two people involved have a clear understanding of what sex means to the other person. If the emotional attachment to sex isn’t equal, sex can be hurtful. Consequently, it should be treated with the greatest amount of respect.

Yes, both men and women need to respect it.
-----
Sex, when enjoyed in the right context, is a wonderful way to solidify a relationship. But when expectations aren’t the same for both partners, it can be devastating.

And Nick questioning Andi's intentions behind the act is what?

Let's say, hypothetically, Andi knew and that indeed Nick said specifically "not to sleep with me if you don't have feelings for me." AND YET, Andi slept with him when she does not love him because she picked Josh. What then is Nick trying to imply is Andi's intention?

That Andi played him.

That Andi had meaningless sex with him.

So what do we call that kind of a girl now?

Are we still sugarcoating what Nick is insinuating?

no matter what form or shape we call his "questioning",

the insinuation remains the same.

Nick is questioning Andi's integrity by questioning her intention.

I've seen posts and posts "pitying" Josh and his family for how can they accept Andi now after learning that she slept with Nick? AND STILL THAT IS NOT SLUT SHAMING?   

What do I call her? A person who is very sexual and enjoys sex. That is all I would think...I wouldn't call her anything. But that is me.
I can't speak for anyone else. To me it was a miscommunication that was very hurtful compounded by the fact they had sex. I try not to waste my time with names/labels.
The whole idea of and wordage of sl*t shaming---that sickens me as much as when someone uses the c word.

[Alanna]

Exactly Cari!  I call it passive aggressive slut shaming.  Nick is presumably a very smart guy.  I don't believe for a minute that he doesn't know that his continuous talking about it is bringing Andi all sorts of negative publicity and SM insults.  He's questioning her feelings and intentions towards him and the fact that he continues to talk about it makes me question his intentions towards her.   I think he loves his ego more than he ever loved her.  

The bolded is perfect. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but this is way too much. Let it die already. Not sure what he is waiting for here- an apology from her, Josh to break up with her, more people calling her names or what- but this is an ego trip meant to shame her imo.

[Ash2214]

Nick is not calling her out on the act(of sex), but her intentions behind the act and how she handled the consequences of the act. This expert of his blog says it all IMO:

And Nick questioning Andi's intentions behind the act is what?

Let's say, hypothetically, Andi knew and that indeed Nick said specifically "not to sleep with me if you don't have feelings for me." AND YET, Andi slept with him when she does not love him because she picked Josh. What then is Nick trying to imply is Andi's intention?

That Andi played him.

That Andi had meaningless sex with him.

So what do we call that kind of a girl now?

Are we still sugarcoating what Nick is insinuating?

no matter what form or shape we call his "questioning",

the insinuation remains the same.

Nick is questioning Andi's integrity by questioning her intention.

I've seen posts and posts "pitying" Josh and his family for how can they accept Andi now after learning that she slept with Nick? AND STILL THAT IS NOT SLUT SHAMING?   

What do I call her? A person who is very sexual and enjoys sex. That is all I would think...I wouldn't call her anything. But that is me.
I can't speak for anyone else. To me it was a miscommunication that was very hurtful compounded by the fact they had sex. I try not to waste my time with names/labels.
The whole idea of and wordage of sl*t shaming---that sickens me as much as when someone uses the c word.

It sickens me too and because of what Nick did, what happened? A fox anchor called her a sl*t on national television. Then you can add the whole social media thing too. I would call that "sl*t shaming."

[Guest]

You know what I am willing  to bet/gamble my yearly salary that Nick has had sex with more than 3 women.   I just dislike the guy, no way around it for me, an I believe the only thing Nick wanted was to let it be known he slept with Andi, that's all no convincing me otherwise.

What does Nick having had sex with more than 3 women have to do with it? Sorry.. not following you there.

[ironcat]

I think we also have to remember that the show isn't real life even though the feelings can certainly be real. In real life, a guy wouldn't be contemplating sleeping with a woman he was madly in love with knowing she was also possibly going to sleep with someone else within days without some serious clarification about what it all meant to each of them.
Nick may be completely sincere in how he approaches sex in a relationship, or he could be adopting this stance because it certainly conveniently suits his purposes now. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but the skeptic in me wonders.

[bleuberry]

I think our discussion is valid - not trying to shut it down. But Nick? A slip is a slip, but the fact that he's still going on about it shows me that his words were very much planned and no way are we going to forget about the FS anytime soon.   

Makes me respect how Clare handled the JPG situation even more. And then there's Nick.   

[luvlady345]

You know what I am willing  to bet/gamble my yearly salary that Nick has had sex with more than 3 women.   I just dislike the guy, no way around it for me, an I believe the only thing Nick wanted was to let it be known he slept with Andi, that's all no convincing me otherwise.

What does Nick having had sex with more than 3 women have to do with it? Sorry.. not following you there.

Because I doubt he was in love with everyone he slept with prior to Andi.....I doubt Nick was a virgin. For me personally there I nothing Nick can say in this situation, it just should have been kept private.

[Kashathediva]

And Nick questioning Andi's intentions behind the act is what?

Let's say, hypothetically, Andi knew and that indeed Nick said specifically "not to sleep with me if you don't have feelings for me." AND YET, Andi slept with him when she does not love him because she picked Josh. What then is Nick trying to imply is Andi's intention?

That Andi played him.

That Andi had meaningless sex with him.

So what do we call that kind of a girl now?

Are we still sugarcoating what Nick is insinuating?

no matter what form or shape we call his "questioning",

the insinuation remains the same.

Nick is questioning Andi's integrity by questioning her intention.

I've seen posts and posts "pitying" Josh and his family for how can they accept Andi now after learning that she slept with Nick? AND STILL THAT IS NOT SLUT SHAMING?   

What do I call her? A person who is very sexual and enjoys sex. That is all I would think...I wouldn't call her anything. But that is me.
I can't speak for anyone else. To me it was a miscommunication that was very hurtful compounded by the fact they had sex. I try not to waste my time with names/labels.
The whole idea of and wordage of sl*t shaming---that sickens me as much as when someone uses the c word.

It sickens me too and because of what Nick did, what happened? A fox anchor called her a sl*t on national television. Then you can add the whole social media thing too. I would call that "sl*t shaming."

Nick is responsible for Nick. He is not responsible for anyone else. Not imho. We live in a country where free speech is a right. I think it's a worthy topic of discussion, but like anything else it can be handled in a respectful manner. If others choose not to be respectful or put their own spin on it--that does not fall back on Nick, IMO.

[bleuberry]

You know what I am willing  to bet/gamble my yearly salary that Nick has had sex with more than 3 women.   I just dislike the guy, no way around it for me, an I believe the only thing Nick wanted was to let it be known he slept with Andi, that's all no convincing me otherwise.

What does Nick having had sex with more than 3 women have to do with it? Sorry.. not following you there.

Because I doubt  he was in love with everyone he slept with prior to Andi.....I doubt Nick was a virgin. For me personally there I  nothing Nick can say in this situation, it just should have been kept private.

Yeah, I'm not even sure that he's being sincere. I'm skeptical. How else does one show or explain how much something means to them? By blabbing to millions and taking every opportunity after to discuss it, of course.   Sounds real special...

[Kashathediva]

I think our discussion is valid - not trying to shut it down. But Nick? A slip is a slip, but the fact that he's still going on about it shows me that his words were very much planned and no way are we going to forget about the FS anytime soon.   

Makes me respect how Clare handled the JPG situation even more. And then there's Nick.   

I think you are missing the point, I don't see this as Nick seeking out Time magazine or Sean's blog. I see these venues as thinking the topic is worth discussing and thought and seeing it has merit.

[luvlady345]

Well Nick said that Sean's blog was his final discussion on the matter, we will see how long that will hold.

[Sponsored content]