I don't know very much about this new show, but it looks to me like it's in extremely poor taste-- bordering on criminally tasteless.
The premise seems to be exactly that-- two couples exchange wives/husbands for a time.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
why isn't it called husbandswap? sexist pigs...
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Probably because the wives are viewed as laborers. The husbands...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One more sign of the Apocolypse.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I keep hoping I dreamed this -- but they keep showing previews that sure didn't come out if my head! *shudder* Disgusting.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I don't know, but I woner if Bill Clinton could use this opportunity to get a better deal on a trade in? Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Was that supposed to be clever?
I think most people would agree that if anyone in that marriage has reason to be looking around for a replacement, it would be Hilary.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i think Marx had it all wrong, television is the opiate of the masses...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I saw a short preview of the show during the NBA Finals. The people involved sure didn't seem happy about the whole situation.
There was actually a snippet of an interview with a young boy, saying how much he disliked his "new mom." Ugh. I can't believe they are pushing this sort of trash. I felt so sorry for that kid.
I'd boycott ABC, but I so rarely watch TV that it would be meaningless.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
After doing a little checking, the title of the show appears to be 'Trading Moms' and is based on a UK show called 'Wife Swap'.
After reading the article, I do not understand what the excitement is about. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Although the producers say that the role-swapping that goes into Wife Swap is limited to household duties, not bedroom activities (we wonder if an infrared bedroom camera is included, as in Temptation Island, to verify that), we find ourselves amazed that some network exec would think that a prize could be handed out for successful wife-swapping.
From the link above.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep, they(Wade Paulson/the writers of the article) are just being salacious. The first bit contradicts what they're implying in the second bit, edit: as should be made even more clear by the name of the show.
Further, if you read further on, it becomes clear that the thrust of the show is more along the lines of whatever that show is with Paris Hilton, where they put rich people with poor people, brits with americans, etc. Hilarity and hijinks result as people are thrust into situations that they don't have experience in. (more editing: actually, it looks like that, plus, i'm a celebrity...get me out of here.)
[ June 28, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The show was advertised in my area as Wife Swap as recently as last night.
The premise of the advertisments was basically, "I love my family, but my husband/wife doesn't appreciate me. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if. . ."
WIFE SWAP!!
Am I the only one that feels that the advertising of this show was meant to hint at the the pornographic 'swap?'
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would need to see the commercial. Perhaps they are hinting very strongly that naughtiness occurs, in which case I can understand why you would be upset, Scott.
Otoh, I disagree strongly with the attitude that a lot of groups are taking with this show and ABC, which is that they need to strongarm ABC into not showing this, or anything like it, through a total network boycott. I would much rather they not watch the show itself and watch other shows they do like. This way, ABC can put shows out for people of all tastes, rather than being forced to cater to one demographic.
For what it's worth, I probably won't watch the show, either, because it sounds stupid and I'm not into star watching. I vastly prefer to see the beautiful people eat rancid duck eggs and worms and the like. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Out of curiosity, what shows on ABC are there to watch?
I like Recess-- really, one of the smartest cartoons ever made-- but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other shows on ABC that merit my time.
EDIT: I'd link you the commercials, Storm, but I already googled for 'wife swap--'
[ June 28, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I odn't have broadband, so it would be a waste of your time, anyway.
I have a really awful memory, and I kind of watch TV as I happen to wander by. I don't plan my nights around it. Which is to say, I haven't memorized what shows are on what nights, beyond that 60 Minutes is on Sunday on some channel, and that King of the Hill and Simpsons are on Fox in the evenings in my area.
I guess I could google for it or something, but I"m sure someone will wander through the thread and mention one or two.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: One more sign of the Apocolypse.
Yep. Signs of the times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fox's knock-off, which will actually air first, is called Trading Spouses, which is both non-sexist and clever. But the idea is still horrible.
There's an ABC Family show called Switched where high-schoolers trade places, and a spin-off called Family Switched where whole families change places, but it's for like a week, and the focus is on learning new activities (cheerleader/rodeo rider, for instance).
This sounds like a failry unhealthy version of that.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Hmmm. I already hate cleaning my own toilet. Don't think I'd want the experience of cleaning someone else's.
space opera
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
What's so new about this? Anyone read Lodge's "Changing places"?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Dumbest, crudest. Thing. Ever.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I find this repulsive too... Ick... Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
I have watched the original show on BBC a few times, and to me it doesn’t appear to be in poorer taste than most current reality shows. The idea behind the concept seems to be to give the participants a new outlook on their relationship, to appreciate their own spouse in a different way and find ways they can improve their own input. Some learn to make demands and make their own needs a priority (also), some learn they have to try harder and be more forthcoming, some find that their spouse actually is perfect for them. Of course the show is edited to show what the producers want to highlight, but in my opinion it can be educative, at least to people who don’t spend much time thinking of their relationship.
But I may miss the point here, if the point is lewd advertising for the American edition. I have seen nothing like that on the BBC show.
Just to point it out: this show is not a regular favourite. I just felt a need to defend something originally European Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The point of the show, similar to that skanky Island show that was on Fox, will ultimately be to test how faithful your spouse is, and how faithful you can be. Sadly, the point that's already been made by anyone appearing on the show is that they don't care about being faithful, or they wouldn't be testing it to this degree, or looking for an excuse to fail the "test". The only way they will convince me otherwise is if the participants are all homely.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Sndrake wrote:
quote:I think most people would agree that if anyone in that marriage has reason to be looking around for a replacement, it would be Hilary.
This might offend a few people but I have seen more than one instance in which a woman had such a negative or domineering personality (not to mention not being into intimacy) that maybe a man might find himself in, let's say, a tempting situation -- and maybe he's not entirely the blame. I do not really know if that was the case with Bill and Hillary (all joking aside) but all the blame cannot be given to the cheating party in all cases when examining cheating in our society.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I do not really know if that was the case with Bill and Hillary (all joking aside) but all the blame cannot be given to the cheating party in all cases when examining cheating in our society.
Bullcrap.
That is the biggest lie I've ever read on Hatrack. No one forces anyone to cheat.
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
But, Katharina: "His wife doesn't understand him"
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Katharina, I too believe adultery is wrong, but one often cannot put ALL the blame on the cheater. I am saying there are reasons for much of this sin besides merely getting turned on for the wrong person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"If she doesn't put out enough, he'll find someone who will."
Someone who blames other people for their own sins they commit is a weenie. If he is so unhappy in his marriage that he no longer wishes to hold to his vows, then he should move out, take off the ring, file for divorce, and divide up the monster truck tickets. Anything else is very selfish, for it is the act of someone who wishes to hold on to the good things while simultaneously using someone else. It is saying that the lives that are being devastated by the cheating spouse exist merely to satisfy the spouse's own needs. Saying it is justified is a lie, and it's a tragic one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If a marriage is not going well, then figure out a solution. Finding someone to blame merely satisfies pride and doesn't fix anything.
I can't believe you are one of those people that blame the wife when the husband cheats. Cheating is a failure of the person choosing to do it, and there is no share of blame anywhere. If you're unhappy, then deal with it one way or another. Cheating is never anyone's fault but the person choosing to do it.
If you say there were provocations for it, other people have weathered the same "provocations" and not turned to betraying their vows and their spouses. You can't blame one person for someone else's miserable choices, not when they are adults.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
If a man (for example) cheats, then he must take ALL of the responsibility for cheating. The woman can only take responsibility for what she did wrong, if anything. Maybe she wasn't loving enough. Maybe she wasn't physical enough. But when he chose to cheat, he takes every bit of the responsibility for the way he reacts to his wife's behavior. A person can only account for how they act, not for what caused it. Life Is Hard. If you choose to respond badly to that, then you have Screwed Up.
err. ditto.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Anyone who tries to blame the victim will automatically get called on the carpet by me and many people here at Hatrack.
One of the reasons abusive relationships last far longer than they need is the victim thinks, "he/she wouldn't be doing this if I was better. It must be my fault."
That same thought is seen by abused children, wives, husbands, and it matters little if the abuse is mental, emotional, or physical.
Or take it the next step. You say she may be cold hearted, emotionless. Why? Maybe because he has hurt her before and she doesn't want to risk it again?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Responsibility is one thing, I am merely trying to examine the fact that there are factors that might make cheating more likely and that causation and responsibility can be two totally different things.
Freud said that in a successful marriage the wife (and these can be applied to the husband as well) must fill three roles:
1) Sister -- that's freindship and companionship.
2) Mother -- nurturing and comfort.
3) Lover.
Any one of these three missing and the relationship is in serious trouble.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not discussing Freud's view of marriage. Your opinion that someone cheating is partly the fault of their spouse is one of the prime reasons abusive relationships occur. It's bullcrap. It doesn't matter how miserable a marriage is. If someone breaks their vows, it is their fault and responsibility alone. They have chosen the most selfish, cowardly, evil response possible. That is their responsibility and only theirs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why aren't you listing the things that are the responsibility of the (in this case) husband in the relationship. Fidelity and trust topping the list - someone who cheats has failed completely at the most basic of obligations and promises.
You're focusing on the wrong half of the marriage. It is never, ever the wronged spouse's responsibility when their spouse chooses to cheat.
[ June 28, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Even if someone double-dog dares me?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I said that the male responsibilities to the wife are the same--
1) Brother
2) Mother
3) Lover
I do not like adultery in the least since deep down our spouce represents our perception of maternity or paternity so cheating or abandoning a spouce is like a parent totaly rejecting a child. Again, though, can we say that there are factors that each married person in a cheating scenario share that might explain why (in many cases) a person actually does cheat?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Because they have decided to respond selfishly, no matter what the provocation was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope. There are a multitude of responses to an unfulfilling marriage, and cheating is the most selfish, destructive, evil one of the many choices. The general state of disrepair may have taken a collaborative effort, but that decision to cheat was made by one person only.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:...decision to cheat was made by one person only.
Sing it sister!
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
It is always the fault of the person who cheats. How on earth can you possibly blame the one who stays faithful? The entire point of marriage is that you get as close as you possibly can. If you have problems, grow a spine and talk about them with the person you claimed to have loved.
MrSquicky would know for sure, but I seem to remember that quite a bit of Freud's theories were completely wrong.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Yeah, the show sounds like blech, but most relaity TV shows are (assuming this is a reality show, I haven't seen the commercials).
Anyway, about good shows on ABC, if we're including ABC Family, the American version of Whose Line Is It Anyway is pretty good.
And about the current conversation: Yeah, the cheater and the cheatee (assuming he/she knows the other is cheating) are the ones in the wrong. Nobody else.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Life imitates Chappelle's Show. Gold.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: it doesn’t appear to be in poorer taste than most current reality shows.
Well, there's a ringing endorsement.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
The decision to cheat was made by one person. I will agree with that. But I think that in some cases, the spouse that has been cheated on has, in fact, created an environment conducive to cheating.
Of course, this does not mean that this is an excuse for the cheater, or that it is the victim's fault.
I think comparing that to abuse is not conducive to the argument. It is like the Hitler comparison.
I say this because I've seen a couple of relationships where the woman was very negative to the man, almost to the point of verbal abuse. Both women were somewhat, should we say, frigid, as well. In both those marriages, when the woman has complained about the man - to other people in front of him, or even behind his back, I feel very bad for the man.
Attraction to other people does not simply turn off as soon as you say your vows. Promises don't stop temptation. You simply learn how to ignore it, and know it for what it is: a biological instinct to be controlled. But not all people are capable of that distinction. And when one is lonely, worse, when they are made to constantly feel the contempt of their spouse, and another person shows interest in them, they have a far more difficult time ignoring their hormones. And if they haven't learned basic morality, they won't even care to make the distinction.
It isn't so much about revenge against the spouse as finding a way to know that someone likes them and accepts them. Someone thinks they are wonderful. People yearn for that kind of acceptance.
This is only one circumstance. Because it is a real circumstance, I suspect many who do not actually live under such conditions convince themselves that they do in order to justify their actions. But the problem is, it doesn't actually justify the actions. It simply makes them more understandable. A person in such a situation is suffering from abuse themself, and it is a very unhealthy way to deal with it, as well as being morally wrong.
[ June 28, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If one's marriage is that bad, then leave. I still don't accept that cheating is ever anything but a selfish, selfish choice.
[ June 29, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I love Amka.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
AmkaProblemka makes very good points that I have to agree with.
I know one situation where the guy never cheated on his wife but she sat up a great environment for understanding him if he did so. This woman and man had several kids together and he seemed a good father. But she at some point of the marriage decides that she doesn't want sex anymore -- and I doubt it was a mutual decision. She was also very critical of him even though he was a good provider and a really nice guy. She even made him sleep in the guest house eventually.
Perhaps he didn't leave her because of the children or he strongly believed in his vows, I don't know. But if I were a family court judge and they ever were in court with her filing for divorce if he ever cheated on her I'd not award her anything.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I bet Katharina gives good hugs in real life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
After michael's last post, I suddenly understand an argument in favor of no-fault divorce that I never did before. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Why is that? Because there is an assumption that wives and husbands share equal responsibility in a relationship?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. It's because it ensures that no judge need twist and turn things to blame either party. No fault means the judge doesn't have to decide if an affair is the fault of the cheater (um, duh!) or the cheatee. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I live in a state which has no-fault as the court rules. A freind of mine had a wife who was basically a public playground and when the marriage ended her actions could not be used in consideration as to who got the kids. Such rules remind of the parody of the "Divorce Barbie" -- she comes with all of Ken's stuff.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Interesting that you feel that an affair should count against the wife, but not against the husband.
As I said, such unequal applications are exactly why I suddenly am in favor of no-fault laws.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, no kidding. A man having an affair is doing what he has to because his wife sucks, but a woman having an affair is an unfit mother who gets all the stuff who victimizes the guy. How misogynistic.
Good grief.
[ June 30, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Got a chance to watch the show last night. It has zero sexual content. It was all about what happens when a rich person lives with a lower middle class family and vice versa. I understand there is another segment where they have a black wife living with a white family and a white wife living with a black family.
I think all the excitement over the possible morals warping nature of this show was way overblown. There was certainly nothing in it that warranted a boycott.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
From the promos I've seen (of the Fox show), it looks pretty disgusting. It's one thing for adults to disrupt their lives and humiliate themselves on national t.v., but it's quite another thing when children are involved. I think that's reprehensible.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is there anyone that has actually watched the show that finds it objectionable?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I forgot there were two different versions of the show. Yeah, I watched the FOX one.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)