Nick Viall - Bachelorette 10 - 11 - Discussion #8

I will agree that Nick is, uhh, quite charitable.

I honestly feel like it is difficult to have a real conversation when there are no names or faces to sleuth with the gossip.

At least with Tenley we had someone familiar to sleuth in the franchise in regards to Ben H.
We were able to post photos, comments made by her, periscopes made by her, and more and then speculate on this.  :Nod:

With Nick? It is RS and others saying some hookups for Nick with no-names.
Not much to sleuth or discuss when there are no names/faces.  

I really think it is just that simple... and that not having any evidence to sleuth is the reason there is little "real conversation" when it comes to Nick's sex life.

I'm not interested in sleuthing who he's having sexcapades with. I don't have to have names to discuss it in general. I guess if it's boring and useless without names, that's fine, and let those who are interested have at er.

Feels like the burden of truth is much heavier in this case, when we usually discuss rumours and gossip floating around. I assume some have more truth to them than others.

You might have. This thread has needed a lot of cleaning up this morning and I am not about to make the convo smooth and blended.
Thanks for the heads up. :Nod:
I went back and just deleted any that needed too much editing due to posting or quoting.
We go through this everyday. A few times a day sometimes.
Soon the thread will have no new posts.

I truly don't care about Nick's random nameless hookups, but I do feel the need to respond when rumours about his sex life are brought up as proof that he's BS'ing or a bad person somehow. Or that it proves he was never into Kaitlyn and that's why Kaitlyn doesn't like him now. I just find that so utterly illogical that I have to respond. It's not because I can't stand the idea of Nick hooking up with random people. He can do that as often as he likes as long as he's not deceiving anyone. I don't think it speaks negatively of his character at all.

His whole point was always that both sex partners should be on the same page as to what it means. That was his gripe with Andi, he told her he loved her and was expecting to propose, while she was just having a last fling before getting engaged to Josh. In that podcast with Stassi he even said something about hoping that if he was the one, Andi/Kaitlyn wouldn't have gone there with F2 or F3. That he would never tell them what to do but he just had to trust that they felt that way too (or something like that). So it's not like he was expecting his potential fiancée to sample all the options, even if he wasn't gonna tell them not to. I see that as consistent with his views on sex, and I think the fact that Andi and Kaitlyn had sex with him and then chose another guy kind of proved that they weren't what he was looking for.

Now if some girl he's slept with comes forward and says he deceived her into bed with promises of a relationship or whatever, then that might affect my opinion of him. But that hasn't happened, so I have no reason to think he's a hypocrite or a bad person just because he may have casual sex. That's why I find it a fruitless topic.

Alanna wrote:

chasingpavements wrote:

AllAboutLove wrote:I don't really see how Nick is held to a virginal standard considering he has had sex twice on national television.
As for a fun piece of gossip about Nick? I think it is because Nick's sex life is probably not seen as a fun piece of gossip which likely has to do with his time on both seasons of the Bette more than anything else that gives it something other than a "fun gossip" vibe since it has been controversial.

I guess I just don't see why it really matters whether one believes Nick has casual sex or not?  
Then again, I am not really interested in Nick's sex life, or anyone else's sex life for that matter.  

Yup, it's interesting that Nick has had sex with two women on the show, yet whenever stories of Nick hooking up with multiple women in bachelor nation or Nick going home with multiple strange women in bars in Chicago comes up, it's immediately dismissed as being crazy talk. Just interesting.

[snipped for brevity]
Jmo.

I think people find it hard to believe because he did such a great job of playing up how important he finds sex, blahblah lalala, when it's totally not true imo. If there was even a shred of truth to his narrative from last year, I doubt he'd be trying to have sex in a church But yeah, I have to give him that, he is a great salesman, even when what he's selling is total BS.

So I guess this means we won't be discussing Nick's lack of a verified Twitter account. 

Just an observation: discussion on the fact Nick supports charitable work has about two pages of posts. Discussion on the rumor/speculation Nick's sex life has more than 3 pages before the editing/deleting. Discussion on his shirtless pictures ... More than I care to count. Well, as long as people are having fun, I just sit back and

^ That might say more about Nick, JMO.

IMO, that only says about people only believe what they want to believe.

IMO, what and how an idea is expressed speaks more about the person expressing it, than about the person it is regarding. So while Nick may chose to be involved in a variety of activities, it is we that chose what to discuss and how long to discuss it. While he may provide the fodder for discussion, he does not shape our opinions and feelings which lead to our postings. So I can not see how the number of pages posted about any particular topic would be a reflection of Nick. It is a reflection of the posters... no matter the content. JMO.

OnePromise, ITA ^^^        We all exercise our freewill in what we as Individuals Choose to Post. JMO