tracy727
August 9, 2006 - 11:39 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Oh one thing that pissed me off about the episode is when Jackie said she thinks her homosexuality is because of genetics and social upbringing. WTF? Isnt she the same person who said you cannot become gay you are born gay. If your gayness is because of social upbringing (BS!) then that means you became gay. I think people are born gay and its not because of genetics or social upbringing (what a retarded comment).
Actually Jackie contradicted herself. Didn't she tell her mother in the last episode that she believed that her homosexuality was due to genetics? Then she added this nurture crap to her explanation this week. Personally, I think the nuture theory is a load of horse crap. What about genetics? Maybe, but we're yet to isolate a "gay" gene or genes.
And don't expect to see such a gene uncovered in the future. If scientists did uncover such a gene or genes, society would have to completely rethink the way it approaches issues affecting gays. It's not like the government considers it top priority enough to fund such research (LOL!). What an understatement. If such a breakthrough came to be, we would be forced to change our policies & laws affecting gays. Yes, that would mean striking down laws that prohibited gay marriage.
Actually I believe the explanation regarding the "etiology of homosexuality" most logically may be found in embryonic development. We all start out as female in the wound. It takes a little longer for the male to develop a penis and testicles during embryonic development. In the male, the clitoris develops into a penis and the labia into the scrotum. The sex hormones, estrogen & testosterone, are major players here. We all have both hormones. An inbalance of the sex hormones in the wound may very well be key here. What about the role of the sex hormones in the development of the brain? I believe this is the most promising area of study in regard to etiology. Not only is hormonal balance significant during embryonic development but throughout life.
You'd be surprised to discover how many people don't realize that we all have both sex hormones. I spoke with a guy just the other day that refused to believe that men have estrogen. He was an elderly guy. I wanted to tell him to think about the reason that he developed flabby boobs as well as general "flabbiness" after he reached 50, but of course, I didn't want to be rude (LOL). Conversely, why do many women grow a mustache after menopause without the benefit of exogenous estrogen? Hormonal balance. It's key throughout life as well as in embryonic development. I only lend credibility to the developmental (hormonal) or genetic theories. Both provide the basis of the nature argument. IMO, the nuture argument is invalid. Further the nurture argument is often used to cast "blame" on parents. This is nothing short of cruel and, IMO, barbaric. Regardless, no one chooses to be homosexual. You just are! BTW, the nuture argument makes no claim that homosexuality is a choice either. This is a huge misconception. It argues that your nurturing or your environment helps determine your sexuality. You still have no choice in the matter of your sexuality.
I don't think a bona fide proven gay gene would do anything. people would just dismiss being gay as a birth defect.also if everyone was checked for the gay gene we would find plenty of people in happy hetero marriages with the gene and plenty of people living happy gay lives without the gene.
swiss74
August 9, 2006 - 11:40 AM
I had believed this program was edited for impact but last night's episode had me in stitches laughing. For Jesse not to clean the place up does not seem reasonable. For Erika to go so ballistic about keeping Sky Sport picked up seems a little unreal. I can not believe that the trainers do not pick up after a training session. Seems as if that would be an understanding when they were hired. If that was the situation about them all of a sudden becoming messy people well what can I say. I did not understand Erika's statement to Doug about his jeans, because Brian is always in jeans at the gym. And what was this about Zen and her dog. Why did she wait until Jackie was gone before bringing the dog to the gym. It would have been more reasonable had she brought it to the gym when Jackie was there and Jackie saying that was not acceptable. Then everyone shows up at Jackie's house to party? Seems as it was inferred that Brian did it to get Jesse in trouble with Jackie. Why Doug showed up there I have no clue. Let's face it Mimi did not take care of the dogs because she was mad at Jackie about going to train someone out of town. This whole episode was too funny. I could go on with more examples but I have to run...
hot4jackie
August 9, 2006 - 11:42 AM
I have to disagree with you on some of your comment! I have to say I think you can become gay because of things that happen in your life. Or at least contribute to it. In my case my dad thinks that is why I became gay...and when he made me think about it..he might be right...lot of issues with my mom....lack of female attention....it happened in a bad way..not like someone growing up with a mother who is deseased or something.But I can't say it is the only reason I am gay! Then with my half sister...it is genetics..doctors have proven that(in her case)
Now Jackie did contradict herself or they edited that way..but then again...would you want to tell your mom that it is your fault I am gay when for 1. you know she is so against it and is already hurting cuz she thinks it is her fault. and 2. she is trying to keep peace with her mother.
Who knows...drama drama drama....that's what keeps us watching....well that and good eye candy!! ha ha!!
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 11:55 AM
Awesome response!!! As a scientist (Biotechnology) I HAVE studied and read a LOT of scientific evidence supporting your theory of genetic influence. Most folks don't have a clue when it comes to biochemistry and genetics, so find it simpler to fall back into past ideologies rather than follow current research. As far as the nature vs nurture argument, there are soooo few people who understand or follow current research in genetics that I'm afraid that the world will continue to need to be flat while the Sun revolves around us until a reality show on genetics comes about for many folks to realize it ain't a disease or disorder, it's just the chemistry.
Next time someone comes up to you with the nurture argument, ask them how the penguins got gay?
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 11:57 AM
Hmm1234,
The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument is complex. You asked, how can Jackie say sexual orientation is from genetics and social upbringing? That does sound conflicting, because Jackie was raised in a conservative family. It doesn't make any sense in HER case, but it does make sense for a lot of straight people.
Social factors and norms do influence us, and play a huge role in what we think as we're developing. My mother and father were born in the 40s, and raised me with conservative values. They weren't anti-gay, but it just didn't occur to them to raise their children any other way than how they were raised. So I heard fairy tales about Prince Charming, and was never given the idea that I could like girls instead. Neither did my friends. So in my case, you could say that I was born genetically straight, and my socialization reinforced that.
The twist is, I came out in my 30s. I wondered where it came from too. I didn't have any gay friends, I wasn't abused by men, and my ex-husband was a great guy. So why did I start being attracted to women, and why didn't I know earlier in life? I think I was born genetically gay, but my upbringing reinforced heterosexuality so much that I never considered any other way. People try to tell me I knew, but surpressed it. But I can honestly say that in my most private dreams and fantasies, I never once thought about loving a woman. I don't believe I chose it, I just think it was delayed. It's rare to hear about someone that discovers it late in life, but it happens.
The question is, would I have known sooner if my parents had raised me with the freedom to explore those feelings as I was developing? I'm not saying experimenting sexually. I'm saying given the option to wonder. I don't know. Most gay people wondered anyway, regardless of how they were raised. I never did. All I know is I'm SO much happier now, even without legal rights, or societal acceptance.
tracy727
August 9, 2006 - 12:07 PM
Quote:
I had believed this program was edited for impact but last night's episode had me in stitches laughing. For Jesse not to clean the place up does not seem reasonable. For Erika to go so ballistic about keeping Sky Sport picked up seems a little unreal. I can not believe that the trainers do not pick up after a training session. Seems as if that would be an understanding when they were hired. If that was the situation about them all of a sudden becoming messy people well what can I say. I did not understand Erika's statement to Doug about his jeans, because Brian is always in jeans at the gym. And what was this about Zen and her dog. Why did she wait until Jackie was gone before bringing the dog to the gym. It would have been more reasonable had she brought it to the gym when Jackie was there and Jackie saying that was not acceptable. Then everyone shows up at Jackie's house to party? Seems as it was inferred that Brian did it to get Jesse in trouble with Jackie. Why Doug showed up there I have no clue. Let's face it Mimi did not take care of the dogs because she was mad at Jackie about going to train someone out of town. This whole episode was too funny. I could go on with more examples but I have to run...
Given the depth and emotions of last weeks episode i thought this ep was rediculous and superficial and not very entertaining. with only 6 eps you would think they each could be good ones. this was like a bunch of out takes.
hot4jackie
August 9, 2006 - 12:14 PM
Quote:
Hmm1234,
The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument is complex. You asked, how can Jackie say sexual orientation is from genetics and social upbringing? That does sound conflicting, because Jackie was raised in a conservative family. It doesn't make any sense in HER case, but it does make sense for a lot of straight people.
Social factors and norms do influence us, and play a huge role in what we think as we're developing. My mother and father were born in the 40s, and raised me with conservative values. They weren't anti-gay, but it just didn't occur to them to raise their children any other way than how they were raised. So I heard fairy tales about Prince Charming, and was never given the idea that I could like girls instead. Neither did my friends. So in my case, you could say that I was born genetically straight, and my socialization reinforced that.
The twist is, I came out in my 30s. I wondered where it came from too. I didn't have any gay friends, I wasn't abused by men, and my ex-husband was a great guy. So why did I start being attracted to women, and why didn't I know earlier in life? I think I was born genetically gay, but my upbringing reinforced heterosexuality so much that I never considered any other way. People try to tell me I knew, but surpressed it. But I can honestly say that in my most private dreams and fantasies, I never once thought about loving a woman. I don't believe I chose it, I just think it was delayed. It's rare to hear about someone that discovers it late in life, but it happens.
The question is, would I have known sooner if my parents had raised me with the freedom to explore those feelings as I was developing? I'm not saying experimenting sexually. I'm saying given the option to wonder. I don't know. Most gay people wondered anyway, regardless of how they were raised. I never did. All I know is I'm SO much happier now, even without legal rights, or societal acceptance.
I think you make a good point..at least one that makes me think! I have a few issues that I think made me gay...but maybe you are right...maybe I was also born gay...but see I was brought up that it is very wrong to be gay...like many other families. My dad actually disowned my half sister for being gay...but when I came out to my dad and was in a serious gay relationship my dad did not disown me (which was kinda weird..but he blames my mom!).....but because it has been burned in my brain that being gay is so wrong....I am now married to a man and deny (in a way) my feelings as a gay woman...but it is affecting my marriage....I could go on and on but I just wanted to say...you made me think!!Maybe I was born this way and never knew it.
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 12:16 PM
I wanted to add that I wondered if this happened to me because my hormones might have changed as I got older. But I thought hormones affected our levels of sexual arousal, not WHO we're attracted to. I mean, if you gave someone extra estrogen, would she start fantasizing about women and completely stop being attracted to men? I don't think it works that way. Can someone in the medical profession shed some light?
These theories are all really interesting!
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 12:23 PM
I'm sorry to keep posting, but please don't deny yourself! If you are happily married and love your husband, then that's one thing. But if you're not...well, I shouldn't give advice. I know how complicated this can be. NO ONE will ever convince me this is a choice. I gave up SO much for this lifestyle because I knew deep in my soul I was gay. And I knew that money, security, and the neighbors' approval weren't going to make me happy.
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 12:25 PM
It ain't just hormones that effect arousal. Think about it. Give a woman testosterone and her body and voice begin to masculinize. Check out so-called "professional" women's bodybuilders. Their bodies are so doped with male hormones (illegal) that the clitoris actually begins to enlarge (pre-penis) and they will take on other male features as well...take a look for yourself. The natural bodybuilders don't use hormones and therefore cannot grow the mass that the professionals get. It works the same way for men if you were to give them similar doses of estrogen - their features will fiminize.
Take a look into the brain for your answer. What triggers arousal? What may be the chemical differences to preferences?
saucyhotbody
August 9, 2006 - 12:28 PM
Exactly what I was thinking, Nikki777! This ep. was over the top with excessive scripting. These people are adults and would definitely make some sort of effort to clean up or "cover up" their bad behaviour. And Erica's bossiness was out of control as well. The "super-wacky situations" are getting so unbelivable, they are cartoonish.
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the show. It's hilarious. But, this episode's excessive unreality was a bit ridiculous.
And ... is Mimi a prop? Seriously, this cannot be a real relationship. She is a brat. I would be out of that relationship so fast. There must be a LOT of good stuff we are not seeing because I really see no positive points at all, or chemistry even, between the two ladies. Especially since Jackie is so HOT and could have anyone she wanted. Why would she pick a complete bi-polar, jealous, psychopath like Mimi? That is harsh, but seriously. When a relationship is stressful more than 50% of the time (and this "seems" on the show more like 95%) it's time to move on, no matter how long they have been together. It's even more irritating since I've dated crazy, jealous people before and it's such a waste of time.
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 12:33 PM
I'm a little confused. I know their bodies change with added hormones. If a woman's clitoris becomes enlarged, she may feel more sexually aroused. But would it actually change her sexual orientation? She suddenly likes women? I've never known a body builder, or anyone who abused hormones, so I don't know.
crunchfreak
August 9, 2006 - 12:45 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh one thing that pissed me off about the episode is when Jackie said she thinks her homosexuality is because of genetics and social upbringing. WTF? Isnt she the same person who said you cannot become gay you are born gay. If your gayness is because of social upbringing (BS!) then that means you became gay. I think people are born gay and its not because of genetics or social upbringing (what a retarded comment).
Actually Jackie contradicted herself. Didn't she tell her mother in the last episode that she believed that her homosexuality was due to genetics? Then she added this nurture crap to her explanation this week. Personally, I think the nuture theory is a load of horse crap. What about genetics? Maybe, but we're yet to isolate a "gay" gene or genes.
And don't expect to see such a gene uncovered in the future. If scientists did uncover such a gene or genes, society would have to completely rethink the way it approaches issues affecting gays. It's not like the government considers it top priority enough to fund such research (LOL!). What an understatement. If such a breakthrough came to be, we would be forced to change our policies & laws affecting gays. Yes, that would mean striking down laws that prohibited gay marriage.
Actually I believe the explanation regarding the "etiology of homosexuality" most logically may be found in embryonic development. We all start out as female in the wound. It takes a little longer for the male to develop a penis and testicles during embryonic development. In the male, the clitoris develops into a penis and the labia into the scrotum. The sex hormones, estrogen & testosterone, are major players here. We all have both hormones. An inbalance of the sex hormones in the wound may very well be key here. What about the role of the sex hormones in the development of the brain? I believe this is the most promising area of study in regard to etiology. Not only is hormonal balance significant during embryonic development but throughout life.
You'd be surprised to discover how many people don't realize that we all have both sex hormones. I spoke with a guy just the other day that refused to believe that men have estrogen. He was an elderly guy. I wanted to tell him to think about the reason that he developed flabby boobs as well as general "flabbiness" after he reached 50, but of course, I didn't want to be rude (LOL). Conversely, why do many women grow a mustache after menopause without the benefit of exogenous estrogen? Hormonal balance. It's key throughout life as well as in embryonic development. I only lend credibility to the developmental (hormonal) or genetic theories. Both provide the basis of the nature argument. IMO, the nuture argument is invalid. Further the nurture argument is often used to cast "blame" on parents. This is nothing short of cruel and, IMO, barbaric. Regardless, no one chooses to be homosexual. You just are! BTW, the nuture argument makes no claim that homosexuality is a choice either. This is a huge misconception. It argues that your nurturing or your environment helps determine your sexuality. You still have no choice in the matter of your sexuality.
I don't think a bona fide proven gay gene would do anything. people would just dismiss being gay as a birth defect.also if everyone was checked for the gay gene we would find plenty of people in happy hetero marriages with the gene and plenty of people living happy gay lives without the gene.
You think wrong (LOL). The political, legal, & social ramifications of such a scientific breakthrough would shake society. The "common" man and religious fundamentalists would no longer have a say in it. Like others have argued, it would become a civil rights issue and legislation would be imposed, not offered up as a referendum to be voted on.
However, you better believe that there will be a multitude of scientists attacking the validity of the research. The results would have to be replicated and confirmed by other genetic researchers. Most of society will fight tooth & nail. However, if the results of the study were deemed as accurate and valid in the end, then we could no longer argue against science.
IMO, I really don't see researchers going in the direction of genetics. I believe that the developmental path offers alot more promise for researchers, and the same end (politically speaking) can be achieved via this route. So what if the "common" man thought of homosexuality as a birth defect? Do gay people really care what the "common" man thinks anyway? As long as homosexuals themselves don't consider it to be a "defect" and realize that they can live full, healthy lives in spite of such a gene, then why should it be the concern of others? Actually it may be surprising to you, but many consider homosexuality to be a defect right now even without the benefit of such research. It doesn't matter if the "defect" was inbred or acquired, it's still a "defect" to many all the same.
From the final sentence in your post, I can clearly see that you don't understand genetics or either you think it's an invalid science. Yes, if there was actually a gay gene, you most definitely could have a heterosexual as a "carrier" of the gene. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? That would also have to be determined by geneticists. However, a homosexual would have to possess the gene. It sounds alot like you're trying to say that regardless of such a gene, a person still would have the ability to choose his/her sexual orientation which I consider to be a load of crap (LOL).
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 12:52 PM
I know gay and straight bodybuilders. I also know gay and straight "Professional" bodybuilders. Yes, there are masculinizing changes, but it's not the hormones that increase arousal for which sex she prefers...you need to learn about the pleasure centers in the brain to find where arousal begins, and for what. Hormones are one small piece of the puzzle, but not the whole picture. DNA and the genes they make up make protiens that tell all cells what to do and when to do it or not do it as the situations arise (nutshell version of the explanation)
Just maybe there is a teeny tiny difference in one or more gene sequences that make a profound effect on what it is we are attracted to. There have been gay people throughout time, heck I'll go as far as to say there were gay neanderthals. How much would you like to bet that Thag (gay neanderthal) didn't have the issues with his gayness nor did his fellow neanderthals because in his time, it just didn't matter. He was gay and like everyone else in his troop, happy to have not been eaten by a T-rex. In our time the issue of gay/straight is most imposed by those who have no clue that this has been a part of humanity since the beginning of humanity. Don't worry about your sexuality. No one is 100% gay or straight. We all fall somewhere on the continuum of sexual preferences that maintains a healthy balance not only for the individual, but the species.
pocketl
August 9, 2006 - 01:00 PM
Jackie is so hot and it was making me mad that she was actually flirting with that sociallite. I thought that lady was not very attractive, and was sort of taunting Jackie by throwing herself at her the entire 2 days they were together.
badgirl
August 9, 2006 - 01:16 PM
That’s what happens when you get to friendly with your employees …no respect …if these people respected Jackie they would not have conducted themselves in that manner….Zen and her dog …Andres true self was a bit reveled …..especially Jess. …Jessie was way out of line…. I have house sat for people and some friends before and there is no way I would have allowed that to happen ….and I'm only 20....an example has to be made of someone….and Jackie needs to have the balls to do so….
The old woman that Jackie went to train was nauseating not attractive at all…..and Jackie being somewhat attracted to her….kind of makes me think that maybe Mimi is the way she is because of Jackie and because she is much younger then she is..…I think that I should have watched a few more shows before I gave Jackie to much “props”…..I am beginning to see her totally different now and its disappointing….yeah she’s successful and has a great body but that’s seems to be it….don’t get me wrong having that is not bad ..but she has issues that she needs to deal with …..Jackie’s probably better off without Mimi…she might damage Mimi the way she is…..and hook up with someone her own age and who can deal Jackie’s issues…as for the statue of the black servant...... that doesn’t offend me at all…I’m from an interracial family …..my father is white and my mother is black ….my moms has a statue or two like that in her house and I have never been offended by them….
TampaChick
August 9, 2006 - 01:16 PM
Quote:
Exactly what I was thinking, Nikki777! This ep. was over the top with excessive scripting. These people are adults and would definitely make some sort of effort to clean up or "cover up" their bad behaviour. And Erica's bossiness was out of control as well. The "super-wacky situations" are getting so unbelivable, they are cartoonish.
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the show. It's hilarious. But, this episode's excessive unreality was a bit ridiculous.
And ... is Mimi a prop? Seriously, this cannot be a real relationship. She is a brat. I would be out of that relationship so fast. There must be a LOT of good stuff we are not seeing because I really see no positive points at all, or chemistry even, between the two ladies. Especially since Jackie is so HOT and could have anyone she wanted. Why would she pick a complete bi-polar, jealous, psychopath like Mimi? That is harsh, but seriously. When a relationship is stressful more than 50% of the time (and this "seems" on the show more like 95%) it's time to move on, no matter how long they have been together. It's even more irritating since I've dated crazy, jealous people before and it's such a waste of time.
I completely agree with you! The show was way over produced this episode - too fake.
Jesse even said they he had 2 days to clean any messes up - there is no way he woulda left Jackie's place looking like that.
And that dog poop was def fake - did you see the way Zen picked it up? it was way too easy and clean.
Also - when they cut away to jackie doing her commentary they used the same comment twice which got on my nerves. They used Jackie talking about how she felt she was talking to a mirror of herself when talking to the socialite. They showed that at the beginning of the show when she first met her - then again after the dinner night.
I think the socialite was completely just playing with Jackie to get good air time. And kudos to her - it worked! But it showed a different side of Jackie - she seemed a bit overpowered by the socialite in my opinion.
But anyway - I still love the show and can't wait til next week.
jackiesim
August 9, 2006 - 01:23 PM
I did not see the caricature. I think that she is liberal. She appears to me to be a very sweet woman and she is tough! I really like her. I am exercising MORE because of the WorkOut show! I do not like those figurines. I do not think that she is a bigot. Some people like to collect Native American images ("dime store Indians"), Asian dolls, etc. I think that if she was a bigot, she would not have hired a black trainer. She never disrespects the trainer (I think his name is Andre). She can hire who she wants to, since she is the CEO of the gym. I like her and I will continue to watch the show. I think that Mimi is a jealous nut and Jackie can do better. Jackie is smart, beautiful, successful, charming and Mimi is lucky to have her. She is cool in my opinion. I wish her all the luck!
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 01:38 PM
ohiofarmgirl,
I think you answered my question. Sexual arousal, or being turned on is one thing, but WHO we're attracted to is another. I just wondered if a change in hormones could change who we're attracted to. But like you said, there are a lot of factors that determine our orientation.
I watched an interesting documentary in my sex and gender class last year called, "You Don't Know [expletive deleted]." It's about biologically-born women who are transexual. One man said he always loved hugging, kissing and cuddling, when he was a woman. But after he started taking testosterone, his level of sexual desire went through the roof. He was so funny talking about how horny it made him. He just wanted to get down to it. He joked and said, "I guess I'm no different from other guys." But WHO he is attracted to didn't change. He started off as a straight woman, but after he became a man, he was still attracted to men. So clearly the hormones affected his level of desire, but not his orientation.
tracy727
August 9, 2006 - 01:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh one thing that pissed me off about the episode is when Jackie said she thinks her homosexuality is because of genetics and social upbringing. WTF? Isnt she the same person who said you cannot become gay you are born gay. If your gayness is because of social upbringing (BS!) then that means you became gay. I think people are born gay and its not because of genetics or social upbringing (what a retarded comment).
Actually Jackie contradicted herself. Didn't she tell her mother in the last episode that she believed that her homosexuality was due to genetics? Then she added this nurture crap to her explanation this week. Personally, I think the nuture theory is a load of horse crap. What about genetics? Maybe, but we're yet to isolate a "gay" gene or genes.
And don't expect to see such a gene uncovered in the future. If scientists did uncover such a gene or genes, society would have to completely rethink the way it approaches issues affecting gays. It's not like the government considers it top priority enough to fund such research (LOL!). What an understatement. If such a breakthrough came to be, we would be forced to change our policies & laws affecting gays. Yes, that would mean striking down laws that prohibited gay marriage.
Actually I believe the explanation regarding the "etiology of homosexuality" most logically may be found in embryonic development. We all start out as female in the wound. It takes a little longer for the male to develop a penis and testicles during embryonic development. In the male, the clitoris develops into a penis and the labia into the scrotum. The sex hormones, estrogen & testosterone, are major players here. We all have both hormones. An inbalance of the sex hormones in the wound may very well be key here. What about the role of the sex hormones in the development of the brain? I believe this is the most promising area of study in regard to etiology. Not only is hormonal balance significant during embryonic development but throughout life.
You'd be surprised to discover how many people don't realize that we all have both sex hormones. I spoke with a guy just the other day that refused to believe that men have estrogen. He was an elderly guy. I wanted to tell him to think about the reason that he developed flabby boobs as well as general "flabbiness" after he reached 50, but of course, I didn't want to be rude (LOL). Conversely, why do many women grow a mustache after menopause without the benefit of exogenous estrogen? Hormonal balance. It's key throughout life as well as in embryonic development. I only lend credibility to the developmental (hormonal) or genetic theories. Both provide the basis of the nature argument. IMO, the nuture argument is invalid. Further the nurture argument is often used to cast "blame" on parents. This is nothing short of cruel and, IMO, barbaric. Regardless, no one chooses to be homosexual. You just are! BTW, the nuture argument makes no claim that homosexuality is a choice either. This is a huge misconception. It argues that your nurturing or your environment helps determine your sexuality. You still have no choice in the matter of your sexuality.
I don't think a bona fide proven gay gene would do anything. people would just dismiss being gay as a birth defect.also if everyone was checked for the gay gene we would find plenty of people in happy hetero marriages with the gene and plenty of people living happy gay lives without the gene.
You think wrong (LOL). The political, legal, & social ramifications of such a scientific breakthrough would shake society. The "common" man and religious fundamentalists would no longer have a say in it. Like others have argued, it would become a civil rights issue and legislation would be imposed, not offered up as a referendum to be voted on.
However, you better believe that there will be a multitude of scientists attacking the validity of the research. The results would have to be replicated and confirmed by other genetic researchers. Most of society will fight tooth & nail. However, if the results of the study were deemed as accurate and valid in the end, then we could no longer argue against science.
IMO, I really don't see researchers going in the direction of genetics. I believe that the developmental path offers alot more promise for researchers, and the same end (politically speaking) can be achieved via this route. So what if the "common" man thought of homosexuality as a birth defect? Do gay people really care what the "common" man thinks anyway? As long as homosexuals themselves don't consider it to be a "defect" and realize that they can live full, healthy lives in spite of such a gene, then why should it be the concern of others? Actually it may be surprising to you, but many consider homosexuality to be a defect right now even without the benefit of such research. It doesn't matter if the "defect" was inbred or acquired, it's still a "defect" to many all the same.
From the final sentence in your post, I can clearly see that you don't understand genetics or either you think it's an invalid science. Yes, if there was actually a gay gene, you most definitely could have a heterosexual as a "carrier" of the gene. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? That would also have to be determined by geneticists. However, a homosexual would have to possess the gene. It sounds alot like you're trying to say that regardless of such a gene, a person still would have the ability to choose his/her sexual orientation which I consider to be a load of crap (LOL).
trust me it would not make a difference if it was known for a fact that people were born gay. it would only make a difference to gay people but to society as whole it would not. you are living in a fantasy world . black people are born black but they still get negativity directed toward them because they are black - correct ?? lmao - do you think someone who gay bashes and hates gays would automatically feel different if he saw on the news that people are born gay - get real. do you think religious fundamentals would not call it a defect .
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 01:49 PM
Very interesting! This has been a wonderful discussion, thanks!!!!
crunchfreak
August 9, 2006 - 02:12 PM
Quote:
Hmm1234,
The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument is complex. You asked, how can Jackie say sexual orientation is from genetics and social upbringing? That does sound conflicting, because Jackie was raised in a conservative family. It doesn't make any sense in HER case, but it does make sense for a lot of straight people.
Social factors and norms do influence us, and play a huge role in what we think as we're developing. My mother and father were born in the 40s, and raised me with conservative values. They weren't anti-gay, but it just didn't occur to them to raise their children any other way than how they were raised. So I heard fairy tales about Prince Charming, and was never given the idea that I could like girls instead. Neither did my friends. So in my case, you could say that I was born genetically straight, and my socialization reinforced that.
The twist is, I came out in my 30s. I wondered where it came from too. I didn't have any gay friends, I wasn't abused by men, and my ex-husband was a great guy. So why did I start being attracted to women, and why didn't I know earlier in life? I think I was born genetically gay, but my upbringing reinforced heterosexuality so much that I never considered any other way. People try to tell me I knew, but surpressed it. But I can honestly say that in my most private dreams and fantasies, I never once thought about loving a woman. I don't believe I chose it, I just think it was delayed. It's rare to hear about someone that discovers it late in life, but it happens.
The question is, would I have known sooner if my parents had raised me with the freedom to explore those feelings as I was developing? I'm not saying experimenting sexually. I'm saying given the option to wonder. I don't know. Most gay people wondered anyway, regardless of how they were raised. I never did. All I know is I'm SO much happier now, even without legal rights, or societal acceptance.
Lana, it's interesting to point out that nowhere in your lengthy post did you state that you were ever actually sexually attracted to men or fantasized about having sex with a man. Perhaps it was implied. Yes, socialization encourages you to repress your sexuality, ESPECIALLY homosexuality. Everyone has to repress his/her sexuality to some degree, both straight & gay people. Ie. Even a straight man who's attracted to a woman can't simply climb on top of the woman and start copulating like a dog, although some people do come very close (LOL!).
It's not as difficult as most my think to repress your sexuality. Only you are aware of your true orientation. You know, gay & straight isn't all black & white. You stated that you're more sexually attracted to women now. However, are you still attracted to men? If so, could you possibly be bisexual with more of a preference for women?
IMO, bisexuals don't choose their sexuality either, but they most certainly may have a choice or "preference" as to whether they sleep with a man or a woman. Alternatively, you could've been a repressed lesbian for many years. Only you would know that. Ah, the complexity and mystery of sexuality.
Kiasmama
August 9, 2006 - 02:13 PM
Quote:
Ladies and Gents I just found the REAL sky sport and spa website and have come to the conclusion that this show is 100% fake. I knew reality shows were perhaps tweaked a little with editing but the only thing that is real is the fact that there is a Sky Sport and Spa. Jackie Warner is infact a co-owner of Sky Sport and Spa BUT she is also an actress because on her SP&S bio which is on the real website it says "She then began working in the entertainment industry, gaining experience in modeling, acting, production, and script coordination, eventually writing and selling her own script.". None of the trainers are on the REAL sky sport and spa website. So yup its all acting and probably the reason why the show only has 6 episodes is because the REAL owner Jillian Micheals got pissed off when she saw the show. I would too I mean the fake trainers make the place look like crap.
All I have to say is kudos to Bravo this is the best fake reality show ever! MTV should take notes. And if it was Jackie who created the show which she probably did good job! But couldnt she have written a script with a better lesbian relationship? And whats with all the little damn pecks ? I mean if your going to act like you are with someone then act!
I've looked...I"ve googled...can you just post this "real" skysportspa website? I thought I read everything that you said about jackie in her bio.....so nothing new there. Where did you read that jillian got pissed off?? How did you come to that conclusion? What site doens't have the trainers on? Please..enlighten me.
reddog00
August 9, 2006 - 02:29 PM
I can't believe someone as nice as Jackie is wasting her time with this Smirf. Mimi is a self-center waste of time. Drop her, Jackie!
reddog00
August 9, 2006 - 02:31 PM
crunchfreak
August 9, 2006 - 02:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh one thing that pissed me off about the episode is when Jackie said she thinks her homosexuality is because of genetics and social upbringing. WTF? Isnt she the same person who said you cannot become gay you are born gay. If your gayness is because of social upbringing (BS!) then that means you became gay. I think people are born gay and its not because of genetics or social upbringing (what a retarded comment).
Actually Jackie contradicted herself. Didn't she tell her mother in the last episode that she believed that her homosexuality was due to genetics? Then she added this nurture crap to her explanation this week. Personally, I think the nuture theory is a load of horse crap. What about genetics? Maybe, but we're yet to isolate a "gay" gene or genes.
And don't expect to see such a gene uncovered in the future. If scientists did uncover such a gene or genes, society would have to completely rethink the way it approaches issues affecting gays. It's not like the government considers it top priority enough to fund such research (LOL!). What an understatement. If such a breakthrough came to be, we would be forced to change our policies & laws affecting gays. Yes, that would mean striking down laws that prohibited gay marriage.
Actually I believe the explanation regarding the "etiology of homosexuality" most logically may be found in embryonic development. We all start out as female in the wound. It takes a little longer for the male to develop a penis and testicles during embryonic development. In the male, the clitoris develops into a penis and the labia into the scrotum. The sex hormones, estrogen & testosterone, are major players here. We all have both hormones. An inbalance of the sex hormones in the wound may very well be key here. What about the role of the sex hormones in the development of the brain? I believe this is the most promising area of study in regard to etiology. Not only is hormonal balance significant during embryonic development but throughout life.
You'd be surprised to discover how many people don't realize that we all have both sex hormones. I spoke with a guy just the other day that refused to believe that men have estrogen. He was an elderly guy. I wanted to tell him to think about the reason that he developed flabby boobs as well as general "flabbiness" after he reached 50, but of course, I didn't want to be rude (LOL). Conversely, why do many women grow a mustache after menopause without the benefit of exogenous estrogen? Hormonal balance. It's key throughout life as well as in embryonic development. I only lend credibility to the developmental (hormonal) or genetic theories. Both provide the basis of the nature argument. IMO, the nuture argument is invalid. Further the nurture argument is often used to cast "blame" on parents. This is nothing short of cruel and, IMO, barbaric. Regardless, no one chooses to be homosexual. You just are! BTW, the nuture argument makes no claim that homosexuality is a choice either. This is a huge misconception. It argues that your nurturing or your environment helps determine your sexuality. You still have no choice in the matter of your sexuality.
I don't think a bona fide proven gay gene would do anything. people would just dismiss being gay as a birth defect.also if everyone was checked for the gay gene we would find plenty of people in happy hetero marriages with the gene and plenty of people living happy gay lives without the gene.
You think wrong (LOL). The political, legal, & social ramifications of such a scientific breakthrough would shake society. The "common" man and religious fundamentalists would no longer have a say in it. Like others have argued, it would become a civil rights issue and legislation would be imposed, not offered up as a referendum to be voted on.
However, you better believe that there will be a multitude of scientists attacking the validity of the research. The results would have to be replicated and confirmed by other genetic researchers. Most of society will fight tooth & nail. However, if the results of the study were deemed as accurate and valid in the end, then we could no longer argue against science.
IMO, I really don't see researchers going in the direction of genetics. I believe that the developmental path offers alot more promise for researchers, and the same end (politically speaking) can be achieved via this route. So what if the "common" man thought of homosexuality as a birth defect? Do gay people really care what the "common" man thinks anyway? As long as homosexuals themselves don't consider it to be a "defect" and realize that they can live full, healthy lives in spite of such a gene, then why should it be the concern of others? Actually it may be surprising to you, but many consider homosexuality to be a defect right now even without the benefit of such research. It doesn't matter if the "defect" was inbred or acquired, it's still a "defect" to many all the same.
From the final sentence in your post, I can clearly see that you don't understand genetics or either you think it's an invalid science. Yes, if there was actually a gay gene, you most definitely could have a heterosexual as a "carrier" of the gene. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? That would also have to be determined by geneticists. However, a homosexual would have to possess the gene. It sounds alot like you're trying to say that regardless of such a gene, a person still would have the ability to choose his/her sexual orientation which I consider to be a load of crap (LOL).
trust me it would not make a difference if it was known for a fact that people were born gay. it would only make a difference to gay people but to society as whole it would not. you are living in a fantasy world . black people are born black but they still get negativity directed toward them because they are black - correct ?? lmao - do you think someone who gay bashes and hates gays would automatically feel different if he saw on the news that people are born gay - get real. do you think religious fundamentals would not call it a defect .
That's not the point at all. Like I wrote, most gay people don't give a flying f*** what ignorant "common" people and religious fundamentalists think. In light of such a scientific breakthrough, they could no longer vote on "gay" issues. How appropriate and refreshing. Yes, gays could then legally marry & reap the benefits of marriage that have long been exclusively reserved for heteros. Ignorant, prejudice people will always exist, but now their power to influence policy & legislation would be snatched from their grimey hands. That's the point.
Hmm1234
August 9, 2006 - 02:45 PM
I said "that is probably why there is only 6 episodes" meaning "might be" or "could be" not "actually". Oh there is a bio that says she is an actress and she writes scripts? It doesnt say it on the new website or bravotv :shrugs: . Well I am guess others do not know. I just googled it and it worked for me did you click "cache"? I am not sure this link will work but I tried it and it worked for me.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:acA1Vd...lient=firefox-aThe trainers that are on the old website are on the new website but not on the show.My opinion is that its 100% not real.
About the gay thing I mean during the old greek/roman times wasnt bisexuality a common thing? Im sure they werent born like that. No?
grayson
August 9, 2006 - 02:53 PM
The ads showed a wild party...yeah, real good idea when there are two little souls wandering around, probably scared out of their wits with all the commotion.
Thank you, Ohiofarmgirl, for speaking on behalf of Jackie's tiny dogs. They really looked bewildered and scared as the noisy strangers rampaged through their home. (I was very relieved when Jesse found them, before they fell prey to the coyotes that Jackie warned about.)
I have four dogs and five cats (all of them are rescued fur persons) and hire a sitter to sleep over with them whenever I cannot stay with them. I would definitely be alarmed if the sitter hosted a boisterious party while I was absent.
lookmomnoman
August 9, 2006 - 02:55 PM
Did I hear right in the previews for next week...Jackie is looking for a new love?????
PICK ME, PICK ME!!! lol
Ive been reading all the posts and wow there are so many different opinions, view points, thoughts and ideas. Im guessing its exactly what the writers and everyone involved with the show wanted to have happen.
Although I like the show...who couldnt with such a hot lesbian in the lead role....Im a bit disappointed with the insult to our intelligence. Seriously...who would leave their bosses house trashed like that. And if your employees are immature enough to "play while the cats away" then its time for new, grown up employees. And are we supposed to believe Jackie would actually flirt outloud with another woman when she knows damn well it will be on tv for the baby, I mean Mimi to see?
Oh well thats reality tv for ya. Not necessarily the entire truth but fun to watch.
Is it me or does Jackie consume a lot of wine?
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 02:56 PM
Quote:
About the gay thing I mean during the old greek/roman times wasnt bisexuality a common thing? Im sure they werent born like that. No?
Heck it's a common thing in the new greek/roman times. Going back to Thag, the gay neanderthal, just maybe there are gene sequences that effect the pleasure/arousal centers in the brain that determine what it is that...umm ...errr...get's it up :-) Is it something we are born with? Well, a gene sequence isn't really something we can possibly choose for ourselves...ergo, yep it's in the genetic makeup. Is there a cure for it? Why would you need a cure? It ain't broke. No need to fix it.
Hmm1234
August 9, 2006 - 02:58 PM
haha I just streched out the board heh. They should allow editing. No? Another thing that caught my attention is at the end of the show during the credits it could have sworn I saw something that said script editor ( i dont think I have seen that before and I always watch the road/rules realworld challenge thing). That and the article that someone posted about that rich lady being "casted" on the show made me say hmm.
Hmm1234
August 9, 2006 - 03:04 PM
Oh yea in anthropology class I was told about a tribe in Africa that if the husband dies the widow marry another woman. I have also heard something about if women wanted to have sex before marriage they did with women (I dont recall where I heard that one). I dont think they were born gay either.
In all honesty I dont care if the show is real or fake its damn intresting. I agree Jackie does consume alot of wine but if you had to deal with Mimi wouldnt you want to be drunk at all times also?
Kiasmama
August 9, 2006 - 03:10 PM
Got it...I didn't see any cache thingy but your link worked....so it was the "old' site...not the "real" site.
I"m not sure I'd be ready to say it's 100% fake ( of course it's not 100% real...is any reality tv??) . I mean...the trainers on the show...are on the web site...and are offering training sessions.... Even on FitTv's "The Gym" they state there are several trainers at their gym (the Body Zone I think?) but only six made it onto the series. The rest aren't on camera.
Kiasmama
August 9, 2006 - 03:12 PM
Quote:
I agree Jackie does consume alot of wine but if you had to deal with Mimi wouldnt you want to be drunk at all times also?
ha...I was thinking the same thing....lol.
crunchfreak
August 9, 2006 - 03:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
About the gay thing I mean during the old greek/roman times wasnt bisexuality a common thing? Im sure they werent born like that. No?
Heck it's a common thing in the new greek/roman times. Going back to Thag, the gay neanderthal, just maybe there are gene sequences that effect the pleasure/arousal centers in the brain that determine what it is that...umm ...errr...get's it up :-) Is it something we are born with? Well, a gene sequence isn't really something we can possibly choose for ourselves...ergo, yep it's in the genetic makeup. Is there a cure for it? Why would you need a cure? It ain't broke. No need to fix it.
Ohiofarmgirl, love your posts! In regard to the Roman-Greek "thing" of the past, we can see the same "thing" taking place today among incarcerated populations or populations in which there's an absence or major shortage of the opposite sex (boarding school, etc.). Although someone may largely identify with being heterosexual, obviously it's possible for him/her to engage in homosexual sex.
I can't speak for women, but from the great number of "horny" men Ive seen who are obsessed with sex, I can see why it may all boil down to a "hole is a hole" mentality occasionally (LOL!). Alternatively, it may just be the need for human touch and intimacy that may prompt normallly heterosexual individuals to engage in homosexual sex.
If I'm not mistaken, the ancient Greeks & Romans considered sex with another man to be a higher level of "love" whereas sex with a woman was considered to serve more of a procreative function. So it may be considered quite different from "prison sex". I don't know. I'm not exactly an expert on ancient Greek & Roman culture. Also I realize that there are also alot more hetero men & women than we might be able to imagine, who engage in occasional homosexual sex, that aren't a part of the aforementioned populations.
Perhaps many heterosexuals are more inclined to argue that orientation is a choice because it may actually be a choice for them (LOL). However, they fail to realize that people with exclusively homosexual orientation exist as do individuals with exclusively heterosexual orientation. Just a thought.
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 04:07 PM
Quote:
Lana, it's interesting to point out that nowhere in your lengthy post did you state that you were ever actually sexually attracted to men or fantasized about having sex with a man. Perhaps it was implied.
crunchfreak, I always had trouble enjoying sex with men. It wasn't horrible, but it never felt natural. Even with men I loved. And the strangest thing is I often felt guilty afterward. Like I had done something dirty. And I was married. I just thought I had a very low sex drive. I never fantasized about women, so it never crossed my mind that I could be gay. How I came out (to myself) is too long story, but after I met my first girlfriend, I discovered that I have absolutely no issues with sex. For the first time in my life it felt perfectly natural.
And as for being bi. Nope. It's like someone switced the man button "off" and the woman button to "ON." I don't know how or why, but I've been out 7 years now and this is who I am.
lookmomnoman
August 9, 2006 - 04:14 PM
[ I agree Jackie does consume alot of wine but if you had to deal with Mimi wouldnt you want to be drunk at all times also?
lmao...good point!!
michelle82
August 9, 2006 - 04:14 PM
I really liked the part in this episode when Jackie went to train that woman. It really turned me on! (: Just watching the sexual frustration between them. haha! The rest of the episode was kind of boring to me like watching all of the trainers act childish while she was gone.
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 04:21 PM
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, the ancient Greeks & Romans considered sex with another man to be a higher level of "love" whereas sex with a woman was considered to serve more of a procreative function
Oh oh I know this! Pick me, pick me! lol
Yes this is true. Man to man love was the highest form of love in ancient Greek culture. Same sex was considered natural and expected. But they did not identify it as "gay." It was just part of the culture. Older men would initiate. It was also a mentoring relationship- he taught the young man about politics, jobs... Then when the younger man was older, he'd initiate a relationship with a younger man. Most were married to women too. Their roles were for reproduction and housework. Sounds like the women got the raw end of the deal, but if you are brought up in a culture like that, it all seems normal.
TampaChick
August 9, 2006 - 04:57 PM
Quote:
Got it...I didn't see any cache thingy but your link worked....so it was the "old' site...not the "real" site.
I"m not sure I'd be ready to say it's 100% fake ( of course it's not 100% real...is any reality tv??) . I mean...the trainers on the show...are on the web site...and are offering training sessions.... Even on FitTv's "The Gym" they state there are several trainers at their gym (the Body Zone I think?) but only six made it onto the series. The rest aren't on camera.
I wanna see... whats the link?
Hmm1234
August 9, 2006 - 05:10 PM
Quote:
I wanna see... whats the link?
Ah its not important just me ranting about stupidness I guess.
Anyways I got a question.. who would win in a fight Mimi Vs Raquel (sp?)?
For some reason from that little clip I have a feeling Raquel could beat Mimi like a red headed step child!
Petalos
August 9, 2006 - 05:16 PM
You Know what? I really love Jackie and I’m straight! Ok... but I like her personality she’s is really amazing, intelligent, smart ...she knows what she wants, she posses this charisma hard to find in some one, and that’s why honestly I don’t know what is she doing with Mimi who is a really possessive women, and she is the exactly the kind of person self fish who is never going to help Jackie to success on her career, she’s never happy with anything she acts like a teenager, and..! Hello ! she is already 26 more less ok ...so what’s wrong with her?...she’s always mad for everything and I think …a person like Jackie needs some body totally the opposite of Mimi who is the kind of person who is never going to help Jackie. So…Jackie If you want to success you need some one who represents you in your personal live and makes you look greater not lower as she does but more important you need some one who makes you happy and increase your dreams and your goals and I’m sorry but the images the we saw on TV says everything. And thrush me I’m just speak to you the way I can speak to one of my best friends…Good look.
R.N.C
yahya2
August 9, 2006 - 05:46 PM
I think Jackie could do better than Mimi. You can tell that she really enjoyed spending time with that woman(the socialite or whatever)The whole interaction between that woman and Jackie was disturbing though. I mean why did that woman flirt with Jackie? It is not like she was genuinely interested in Jackie. I also thought she was ugly. She seemed full of herself too.
shenmu
August 9, 2006 - 06:00 PM
Jackie is H. O. T. HOT! Mimi is Uber lame. Peeler is gay. Jesse needs to workout more. Brian needs to stay out of the sun. Rebecca needs to keep her mouth shut. Erika needs to apply less lipgloss. Zen should take her dog to the vet. It's poops "fake plastic " poop. While she is there she can get a real name. Finally, Andre is fine thus far, a little cocky, but what male trainer isn't. Did I forget to mention.... Jackie is smokin' hot. When she dumps Mimi I will be sure to borrow $400 bucks to hang out with her for an hour. Peace!
tobeannounced
August 9, 2006 - 06:00 PM
You have got to be kidding me? It is of such enormous necessity for BRAVO to consider the perception this so called "the best of the best" gym/trainers portrays to the world of professional fitness trainers. I've been there done that; worked for a billionaire family and traveled worldwide on the private jet, ran personal training programs at many of the more high end gyms in many high end communities around the world. I have a degree in the field, to include a masters degree, and now the pursuit of a PhD and a DO. This joke of gang who are the "best" are nothing less than amateur trainers putting on a circus act. Their boxing and martial arts techniques are beyond disgusting, not to mention the superstar owner who needs enormous help with her form (3rd degree black belt here, world ranked martial arts competitor, and the personal reference from some of the best in the world of martial artists, kickboxers, and boxers). Her certifications, you have got to be kidding me. Does anyone out there know the difference between American College of Sports Medicine, CSCS, NSCA, and AFFA, ACE, or better yet ISSA???? This program and the techniques, program, and protocols, of these so called professionals is actually much more of a comedy act than it is a reality. Trainers coming into the "gym" working with clients in jeans? What is this? Here is my take: in the next season of WORKOUT I dare BRAVO to take my trainers and my medical wellness program supervised by a world renown team of Internal Medicine Physicians, Health Psychologists, Physiologists, to name a few and pin them up with what Skybox has to offer. Beverly Hills doesn't have to be a circus act. We can show you what real professionalism and what the best have to offer. We will do circles around "Jackie" and the world can see what real class is all about! Competitive market they say??? I take my job seriously and am really good at what I do and a military background makes that so. Talk some sense, not nonsense.
Lana3
August 9, 2006 - 06:24 PM
Quote:
Zen should take her dog to the vet. It's poops "fake plastic " poop. While she is there she can get a real name.
That's the funniest thing I've read all week.
wenjen
August 9, 2006 - 06:55 PM
yeah but are you HOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTT??
ohiofarmgirl
August 9, 2006 - 07:21 PM
Thanks for the kind words! I honestly enjoyed the discussions today. The best thing that will come of this show is the experience we all share in this board together. It really does open the forum to so many views and in my honest opinion, the best way for the generally fearful heterosexual population to get a grasp of "human rights" for the GLBT community is to maybe see that we're really just as human as they are...warts and all :-)
LynnB
August 9, 2006 - 07:21 PM
I have never seen a more screwed up bunch in my life. The sheer painful stupidity of most these characters is unbelievable. Is giving them a little depth so hard for the writers to do? Or is it poor acting? The trainers are a total one dimensional bore. Could the writers please come up with convincing scenarios? Would Jackie really be so stupid as to have a hot picture of the woman she was going out of town to train for Mimi to find? Why have a picture at all, she had met the woman before! I find Jackie almost believable, but she poses a little too much, comes off a just a little too wonderful, then the picture thing. Jackie's mother was good, though. Very convincing.
The moron who let the other morons into Jackie's house, letting them make a big mess, even breaking a vase, and then not even cleaning up? Please! That is so thin! NO California gay would have left the house like that in a million years! My imaginary cat could write a better story with her brain tied behind her back. The best part of the show is the working out, which there is little of.
ImTheCEOBaby
August 9, 2006 - 07:21 PM
Quote:
Ladies and Gents I just found the REAL sky sport and spa website and have come to the conclusion that this show is 100% fake. I knew reality shows were perhaps tweaked a little with editing but the only thing that is real is the fact that there is a Sky Sport and Spa. Jackie Warner is infact a co-owner of Sky Sport and Spa BUT she is also an actress because on her SP&S bio which is on the real website it says "She then began working in the entertainment industry, gaining experience in modeling, acting, production, and script coordination, eventually writing and selling her own script.". None of the trainers are on the REAL sky sport and spa website. So yup its all acting and probably the reason why the show only has 6 episodes is because the REAL owner Jillian Micheals got pissed off when she saw the show. I would too I mean the fake trainers make the place look like crap.
All I have to say is kudos to Bravo this is the best fake reality show ever! MTV should take notes. And if it was Jackie who created the show which she probably did good job! But couldnt she have written a script with a better lesbian relationship? And whats with all the little damn pecks ? I mean if your going to act like you are with someone then act!
Yes, you're right, there is a 'real' website for her gym (which also has a map to the place, the phone/fax/email, etc) and shows ALL of the trainers (not just the ones on the show -- which makes me think they are there for entertainment purposes).
Not so sure about the other stuff relating to Jillian, but I have a feeling that the 'socialite' shown in this episode will end up having a show on Bravo (she is in talks with a network right now --perhaps something a'la Real Housewives of OC type show). Interestingly enough, Jackie had a 'cameo' of sorts when she appeared on Bravo's 'BlowOut' with Johnathon Antin (she was in getting her hair done by him and talking about getting her eggs frozen).
And they think we're just dumb viewers...tisk, tisk....