Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
(Post 8810953)
..great post, Maru..:love:...I think yeah, that he used the whole Charlie thing to be seen as the 'victim' and now realises that rather than it being a positive and an 'advantage' to him, it's more been a negative...I still think that the whole thing doesn't quite sit right...he became angry that he and Charlie had been nominated because of their relationship and the effect on the house, rather than on their own merit and personality...and yet, now he's saying that them being in the house together has basically stifled him for 3 weeks...so which is it..?..if it had such a profound effect on his personality when she was in, why be so amazed that it would be a reason for nomination..?.in that confined environment...all very strange.....also, it seems odd to me that Laura and Evelyn seemed so surprised when he said it..that they had lived that 'control' that Charlie apparently had over him for a large part of his time in there../that all of the housemates had..so how are they surprised at him giving that control as a reason now...they've lived it/they've breathed it also for 3 weeks../you couldn't not notice what he's describing
|
I agree 100%. Laura and Evelyn had their reasons I'm sure but as a viewer I'm also curious why they had never approached him about it. That to me is weird as they seemed somewhat close to him prior to her entering the house.
Co-dependencies usually don't make much sense to those outside of them and it feels awkward to be around people who are like that. Other relationships usually suffer at it's expense and a lot more time and energy is devoted to "caring" or "protecting" the needy one. There are emotional rewards, usually relating to self-esteem, for both parties staying in the relationship even it is toxic and is isolating them and controlling their behavior around other loved ones.
By time the relationship ends, there is a lot resentment and both parties claiming to be the victim. Yet they still feel somewhat "tied down" by the other person because they haven't yet acknowledged their ( dysfunctional) role in it and relinquished it.
Even though the relationship has ended, the original roles still continue and are reinforced until someone breaks the cycle to accept responsibility for their part in it and can not only leave it physically but emotionally. If they do the walking part without having that self-realization, they will just resume where they started when they come back into contact. It's like they'd never been apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
(Post 8810955)
..:laugh:...well at least you'll have a great modelling career, me dear.../a little consolation for being so forgettable..:laugh:...
|
Oh well then that explains Alex's gameplay then... don't speak because he doesn't have the voice to match the body :laugh:... unless it's for a Unisom commercial... then he's perfect! :laugh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfie
(Post 8811072)
That wasn't my intention, Maru!! It was meant as a compliment as I was impressed by the points you made, and the thought you had put into them.
I'm hoping you're an Alex fan, now that you've said that!! :unsure:
|
:laugh: Was just joking. Don't kill me
I just don't see how Jason's positive traits have to come at the expense of Charlie's and vice versa. She's been evicted almost a week now and she isn't even present in the house to defend herself. Easy to guess that won't look good to a lot of people, especially people who were voting to keep her in.
|