Matt Agnew - Bachelor Australia - Season 7 - Discussion

leavers wrote:

Jolena wrote:

I agree he may have dated forward, more sexual, flirty  girls like Abbie IRL and sometimes a nerd will marry them too.It's not far fetched to say that some really smart guys do not want their girls/spouses to be as smart  or on their intellectual level., some guys like girls that they can pull the wool over on and who don't steal the show from them so to speak (maybe Matt likes being the smartest person in the room after all .) I actual witness this as my son's best friend is a Doctor and God he married a Ditz (pretty and sexy) but NOT at all what any of us suspected he would pick for his wife. I also have another friend who's son is a lawyer and he was always attracted to girls who were not on the same education , he has had numerous girls who were professionals as well but always was attracted to the non professional , uneducated ones all the time. So to each his own. I wonder if Matt met someone else, he says there's no one right now for him but that might not necessarily be the truth.  

when I told my boyfriend (who watched the whole season with me and always though Matt should have picked Abbie based on level of chemistry/attraction) it was confirmed they broke up, the first thing he speculated was that Matt might have found that he really didn't like a girlfriend who was his intellectual equal (and maybe intellectual superior) after all. He probably likes a woman who is just smart enough to appreciate HIS intelligence, and find it attractive, but he actually does still want to be the smartest in the room.  I totally see it too IMO.  

Adding it all up... the history of dating "Abbies", the somewhat onesided relationship and breakup, & Chelsie's obvious hurt, I'm really feeling right now that my long-held suspicions that Matt is just a regular old player with a nerd facade might be true.  JMO, IMO, etc etc.  I guess we will see how it plays out.  Lets see who is his next girlfriend; the proof will be in that pudding IMO.

Astrobach wrote:I’m not sorry I passed on it and will watch them with the retrospect of the new information, which will maybe color my perception.

Vjeff wrote:

Genevieve Australia wrote:

Vjeff wrote:

Bobette wrote:IMO this is what happens when Leads choose against type.  All the successful AU couples have IMO chosen people exactly like their usual type.  

Bach is not the time to be trying something new, IMO, and I partly blame the influence of friends and family pushing Leads to choose who they want them to.

Agree completely, said a page back that if Angie and Carlin last any longer I would be shocked. People have a type for a reason! I think Matt's friend Kate was not only controlling but probably has a different image of Matt to who he actually is.

I have read the forum guidelines, and I don't think this is the right thread to discuss Angie and Carlin, I feel it is unfair to discuss possible issues with them  if your observations cannot be refuted in this thread. This thread is about Chelsie and Matt but since you mention Angie and Carlin, Angie said that she and Carlin are very similar and both are dorks, so she was able to see more in real life than in the show so she really didn't go against her type. Carlin is her type but more stable and conventional looking. Matt and Chelsie, on the other hand, didn't come across as a real couple to me.  I never felt that Matt and Chelsea had romantic and sexual energy but I admitted I could be wrong because the show is edited. He came across as scripted and Chelsie didn't seem to be ready to date yet. Her interest for girls that were very different from Chelsie (i.e. Monique and Abbie) made me question his so called 'chemistry' with Chelsie. Even Helena isn't similar to Chelsie, she has a different type of beauty and presence, which I believe initially captivated him but Helena didn't show much interest so Matt had to move on.

I was discussing the idea of choosing someone who isn't your type, who looks great on paper and great to your family. I don't think that's the best idea as you have a type for a reason. Anyway that's what Matt did and I was just comparing a similar situation with what Angie did, which I think will also be the wrong idea. Not discussing .

Dutchy23 wrote:

Astrobach wrote:Wow!
This is becoming the total sh$t show comments section!!!
All I can add to the general conversation is my strong opinion that I take ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Rachael does on SM with a bushel of salt...
This is the Rachael that was causing drama in the house long before now.
This is the Rachael that was caught flirting with crew members and being kind of proud of that.
This is the same Rachael that continued her attempts at relevance and being in the spotlight after she got kicked out with a ‘in your face ‘ Vakoo lesbian or bi ( who knows’ ?) relationship photo op.
This is the Rachael that is saying she is friend with someone ( Chelsie) but doesn’t hesitate to insinuate and spread all kinds of stuff in a public way about a very private matter.
I do not pay much attention to what she says and unfortunately too many are so thirsty for BTS information that they believe and prompt even more to be released, she is again in the news playing ‘ guardian angel ‘ to poor Chelsie. I wouldn’t want a friend that exposes any details true or not about my private life. That’s not a friend that’s a fame whore.
Chelsie is a great person and is too weak or hurt to see or stop her from being her spokesperson.

JMHO
I learned early on to discern WHERE any information comes from, before I can assess it’s validity and weight.
If I heard a Kristen or Helena type person, saying harsh things about Matt, I would give it more credence. It’s very sad that these personal matters take a life of their own because they originated in the public eye.

I agree! Rachel was bad news from the start.

I never saw "it" between Matt end Chelsea. Hated the whole series because of the overly adoration of Chels and the bashing of Abbie. Matt had to deal with a terrible bunch of women, most of them only there for exposure. He was boring himself. The fact that Rachel ad Chelsea are best friends, makes me believe Chelsea is a totally different person in real live. I'm not surprised by their break-up, cause I never saw it between them.

Genevieve Australia wrote:

]

Leavers,  I think people idealised Matt and Chelsie. Using the term an 'intellectual equal'  based solely on a degree is unreliable. Chelsie doesn't have a PhD anyway. Some of us have PhDs, or one or two masters and can hold many different conversations, but that doesn't mean each person with a postgrad or doctorate is automatically smarter than someone who doesn't have one or has only done trades. Due to my lifestyle  and career path (PhD) and circle of friends I have found people with PhDs all over the world who have no lives besides their research projects. If you talk to them about  historical figures, art, opera, archaeology,  films, or basic concepts of Neurosciences, literature, geography, etc with them at least half of them have no idea  about what you are talking about because it is not their line of work. To have a PhD or to become a researcher all you need is to be very passionate about one specific area of study and work hard on it. Most PhDs in sciences are not necessarily smarter than non-PhDs.  Look at this forum, most people posting here have better grammar than Chelsie does and many of the posters here are not even native English speakers (which is my case, I was born in Europe). I see very intelligent posters here. Unfortunately,  I felt that during Matt's season people were paying excessive attention to Matt and Chelsie's careers instead of focusing on their lifestyles, passions, and personality.

 I think Matt's season was based on intellectual snobbery. It was ridiculous. Chelsie and Matt bored me when they were together; well, the whole season was tedious. I wish during that season people focused more on people for who they are, rather than for their degrees. Matt was dull, he didn't come across as overly bright, even if he is. Do I think Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise? I doubt it. I do not believe  that Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise.   As I said, a PhD is about a passion for a field,  and and intellectual is not the same as a scientist,  they are in fact very different things but one can be both. Matt is an astrophysicist but he is not an intellectual. Is he very smart?  Probably but there is the chance that he is just very good with numbers and a very hard worker but has an average IQ.

Bobette wrote:@Dirty Street Pie Your new avatar is GOLD.  

Azzurra wrote:

Genevieve Australia wrote:

]

Leavers,  I think people idealised Matt and Chelsie. Using the term an 'intellectual equal'  based solely on a degree is unreliable. Chelsie doesn't have a PhD anyway. Some of us have PhDs, or one or two masters and can hold many different conversations, but that doesn't mean each person with a postgrad or doctorate is automatically smarter than someone who doesn't have one or has only done trades. Due to my lifestyle  and career path (PhD) and circle of friends I have found people with PhDs all over the world who have no lives besides their research projects. If you talk to them about  historical figures, art, opera, archaeology,  films, or basic concepts of Neurosciences, literature, geography, etc with them at least half of them have no idea  about what you are talking about because it is not their line of work. To have a PhD or to become a researcher all you need is to be very passionate about one specific area of study and work hard on it. Most PhDs in sciences are not necessarily smarter than non-PhDs.  Look at this forum, most people posting here have better grammar than Chelsie does and many of the posters here are not even native English speakers (which is my case, I was born in Europe). I see very intelligent posters here. Unfortunately,  I felt that during Matt's season people were paying excessive attention to Matt and Chelsie's careers instead of focusing on their lifestyles, passions, and personality.

 I think Matt's season was based on intellectual snobbery. It was ridiculous. Chelsie and Matt bored me when they were together; well, the whole season was tedious. I wish during that season people focused more on people for who they are, rather than for their degrees. Matt was dull, he didn't come across as overly bright, even if he is. Do I think Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise? I doubt it. I do not believe  that Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise.   As I said, a PhD is about a passion for a field,  and and intellectual is not the same as a scientist,  they are in fact very different things but one can be both. Matt is an astrophysicist but he is not an intellectual. Is he very smart?  Probably but there is the chance that he is just very good with numbers and a very hard worker but has an average IQ.

This! I agree with every word. I watched maybe one episode in total but my initial impression of Matt was similar to yours, I didn't undersand the hype. He is not that smart, not that attractive (he has a nice body but up from shoulders he does very little to me) and personality-wise he seems boring and bland...

From what I gathered, everyone loved him. I was on the other hand underwhelmed because seeing him on the show (only 1 episode), he was so uninteresting that I didn't felt tempted to watch his season after all (and I was dead set on binging on another Australian bachie).

Genevieve Australia wrote:

Leavers,  I think people idealised Matt and Chelsie. Using the term an 'intellectual equal'  based solely on a degree is unreliable. Chelsie doesn't have a PhD anyway. Some of us have PhDs, or one or two masters and can hold many different conversations, but that doesn't mean each person with a postgrad or doctorate is automatically smarter than someone who doesn't have one or has only done trades. Due to my lifestyle  and career path (PhD) and circle of friends I have found people with PhDs all over the world who have no lives besides their research projects. If you talk to them about  historical figures, art, opera, archaeology,  films, or basic concepts of Neurosciences, literature, geography, etc with them at least half of them have no idea  about what you are talking about because it is not their line of work. To have a PhD or to become a researcher all you need is to be very passionate about one specific area of study and work hard on it. Most PhDs in sciences are not necessarily smarter than non-PhDs.  Look at this forum, most people posting here have better grammar than Chelsie does and many of the posters here are not even native English speakers (which is my case, I was born in Europe). I see very intelligent posters here. Unfortunately,  I felt that during Matt's season people were paying excessive attention to Matt and Chelsie's careers instead of focusing on their lifestyles, passions, and personality.

 I think Matt's season was based on intellectual snobbery. It was ridiculous. Chelsie and Matt bored me when they were together; well, the whole season was tedious. I wish during that season people focused more on people for who they are, rather than for their degrees. Matt was dull, he didn't come across as overly bright, even if he is. Do I think Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise? I doubt it. I do not believe  that Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise.   As I said, a PhD is about a passion for a field,  and and intellectual is not the same as a scientist,  they are in fact very different things but one can be both. Matt is an astrophysicist but he is not an intellectual. Is he very smart?  Probably but there is the chance that he is just very good with numbers and a very hard worker but has an average IQ.

Azzurra wrote:

Genevieve Australia wrote:

]

Leavers,  I think people idealised Matt and Chelsie. Using the term an 'intellectual equal'  based solely on a degree is unreliable. Chelsie doesn't have a PhD anyway. Some of us have PhDs, or one or two masters and can hold many different conversations, but that doesn't mean each person with a postgrad or doctorate is automatically smarter than someone who doesn't have one or has only done trades. Due to my lifestyle  and career path (PhD) and circle of friends I have found people with PhDs all over the world who have no lives besides their research projects. If you talk to them about  historical figures, art, opera, archaeology,  films, or basic concepts of Neurosciences, literature, geography, etc with them at least half of them have no idea  about what you are talking about because it is not their line of work. To have a PhD or to become a researcher all you need is to be very passionate about one specific area of study and work hard on it. Most PhDs in sciences are not necessarily smarter than non-PhDs.  Look at this forum, most people posting here have better grammar than Chelsie does and many of the posters here are not even native English speakers (which is my case, I was born in Europe). I see very intelligent posters here. Unfortunately,  I felt that during Matt's season people were paying excessive attention to Matt and Chelsie's careers instead of focusing on their lifestyles, passions, and personality.

 I think Matt's season was based on intellectual snobbery. It was ridiculous. Chelsie and Matt bored me when they were together; well, the whole season was tedious. I wish during that season people focused more on people for who they are, rather than for their degrees. Matt was dull, he didn't come across as overly bright, even if he is. Do I think Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise? I doubt it. I do not believe  that Matt was the smartest lead in the Australian franchise.   As I said, a PhD is about a passion for a field,  and and intellectual is not the same as a scientist,  they are in fact very different things but one can be both. Matt is an astrophysicist but he is not an intellectual. Is he very smart?  Probably but there is the chance that he is just very good with numbers and a very hard worker but has an average IQ.

This! I agree with every word. I watched maybe one episode in total but my initial impression of Matt was similar to yours, I didn't undersand the hype. He is not that smart, not that attractive (he has a nice body but up from shoulders he does very little to me) and personality-wise he seems boring and bland...

From what I gathered, everyone loved him. I was on the other hand underwhelmed because seeing him on the show (only 1 episode), he was so uninteresting that I didn't felt tempted to watch his season after all (and I was dead set on binging on another Australian bachie).