Married At First Sight - Season 4 - Episode Discussion - *Sleuthing - Spoilers*

atem wrote:

Columbia, MD wrote:Re: instagram picture referred to above.  I doubt that is Heather.  Think the person in the picture is too skinny to be Heather.  JMHO.

As for everyone on the show having a "profession" well, one would hope so.  Better than the unemployed folks we see on Bach/ette.  Again, JMHO.

This is a general issue I'm having with these shows. I have only been reading the comments on this show, but I can't help but feel that the people being part of these shows (including Bachelor/Bachelorette) is nothing but a means to shill things.  It really seems like our culture is becoming a bunch of hypocrites that bash 'big business', but go on to shill products all day long.  Is that just me?

No I feel the same way. I think it was a natural outgrowth of the publics response to Trista and she was the catalyst by having her wedding paid for and then all else followed. On one hand, can you blame them, why bite the hand that is feeding you. I think there is a classy way to go about it though. Also, we are to blame, if we simply let them play out their tv dating and weddings and forgot about them, we would not be seeing them hawking things all the time, but we are to blame by hanging on every word they write and buying all their products. I think MAFS has a much lower star power than the Bach/ette though.

My 2 cents, I do think it is Heather.

Ruqibabe wrote:

jlccaz wrote:

Ruqibabe wrote:

Smoking was not her deal breaker. She said she was ok with an occasional smoker

I believe that Heather has since tweeted that (unlike the impression from what was aired about her) she had stated "smoking" (perhaps a euphemism for her attitude about pot use) was "dealbreaker."

Just to be certain we are talking about the right person. Isn't this Heather? I don't think she is that replused by cigarette or maybe she is modeling with it Or maybe bad girl turned good? Who knows

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIsucfpDS2b/

IA it's Heather. She must have been modeling or doing it as a joke for something unless she's a mom and I hadn't heard.

albean99 wrote:

Ruqibabe wrote:

jlccaz wrote:

I believe that Heather has since tweeted that (unlike the impression from what was aired about her) she had stated "smoking" (perhaps a euphemism for her attitude about pot use) was "dealbreaker."

Just to be certain we are talking about the right person. Isn't this Heather? I don't think she is that replused by cigarette or maybe she is modeling with it Or maybe bad girl turned good? Who knows

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIsucfpDS2b/

IA it's Heather. She must have been modeling or doing it as a joke for something unless she's a mom and I hadn't heard.

About the mom story, there is a Heather Siedel on LinkedIn that's a mom. Not sure if it's this Heather.

Ruqibabe wrote:

Amberish wrote:

Ruqibabe wrote:

This is so untrue. I follow him on twitter. He blocks people that say negative things.

Totally true. A blogger that I follow wrote that she received an email from Derek thanking her for her anti Heather point of view. I don't follow Derek and find your comment, if true, very telling, in that his mask is on ...

The question is did Derek specifically write thank you for throwing shades at Heather? Or something related? Or he just thanked her for understanding his POV. There is a big difference. I have written a couple of tweets supporting him and all he does is like or replies with you are smart GIF. Tom has actually liked more terrible comments abt Heather. IMO I would love to see the email.

BTW he blocks people that say negative things abt him.

The blogger hadn't read the spoilers and came down harshly against Heather. However, like many others, once the series let viewers know about Derek's substance abuse problem, the blogger changed her tune.

I was bothered by the season 2 pairing of Jessica with an addict and it's happened this season by pairing Heather with another addict. Except for that --- supposedly --- during season 2, drugs didn't rear it's ugly head until after the marriage. In this case, production had prior knowledge that Derek had a problem, or should have, given it's rather obvious Derek isn't shy about his pot problem.

Here is the application if anyone has interest.

Wayback Machine Application version

Thanks, jlccaz.

I note there is a question about deal-breakers. Makes one curious if Heather filled it in and what she said. Of course we'll never know.

The thing about deal breakers is that one shouldn't have to put on the application that a deal breaker would be drug addiction!

That goes without saying. Ugh

Mimi27 wrote:The thing about deal breakers is that one shouldn't have to put on the application that a deal breaker would be drug addiction!

That goes without saying. Ugh

Should the above include alcoholics and people with mental health issues?  

2observe - I think someone should be allowed to say they don't want to have anything to do with alcoholics. I would state such a thing on an application.

I reserve judgment on the mental health issues. All of us are a little neurotic, and yes, there are people with serious mental health issues whom the experts should weed out before they get too far in this process. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some depression, anxiety or whatever at some time. JMHO

IMO I think every single thing that is a deal breaker to the applicant should be listed. Use a second page if needed. I can't see leaving anything out. Nothing should be assumed.

What would be acceptable for one person, might not be ok with someone else.

GuardianAngel wrote:IMO I think every single thing that is a deal breaker to the applicant should be listed. Use a second page if needed. I can't see leaving anything out. Nothing should be assumed.

What would be acceptable for one person, might not be ok with someone else.

Exactly!!!

2observe wrote:

GuardianAngel wrote:IMO I think every single thing that is a deal breaker to the applicant should be listed. Use a second page if needed. I can't see leaving anything out. Nothing should be assumed.

What would be acceptable for one person, might not be ok with someone else.

Exactly!!!  

It doesn't take two pages to say "I don't wish to marry people who routinely violate sections of the Penal Code of our state." I think that's fairly assumed! Are you supposed to say that wifebeating occasionally is a dealbreaker?! Ha ha. M