1 hour ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Sharon should not end up raising the child that she was complicit in kidnapping, whose mother she chased down and watched die on side of the road. I'm sorry. No. 

 

There was a time when soaps knew certain things were off limits and crass. After something like that, writers would never have Sharon raise him. But I feel they'll go there because today's soaps have turned it's heroes/heroines into the villains as plot dictates. 

 

Really? I kind of feel like soaps have been doing that kind of thing for decades. Very little was off limits or too crass.

Sharon didn't know until after the fact that Christian wasn't her son, also Sage was driving while on the phone with Adam. Sage should've told everyone that Christian was Adam's in the first place. Didn't Nick forgive her anyway

5 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

 

Really? I kind of feel like soaps have been doing that kind of thing for decades. Very little was off limits or too crass.

 

But they didn't have their main/connected characters doing those things. Others would be brought on to do it. I can't imagine Adam Newnan causing the death of a baby and burning the fetus in 1991. Or him intentionally murdering a man without going to jail. 

5 hours ago, cassadine1991 said:

Sharon didn't know until after the fact that Christian wasn't her son, also Sage was driving while on the phone with Adam. Sage should've told everyone that Christian was Adam's in the first place. Didn't Nick forgive her anyway

 

I also didn't say Sharon wasn't the only one that was complicit. But just because others were doesn't absolve her. Knowing and continuing to lie and hide it makes Sharon a kidnapper. Being forgiven doesn't mean Sharon should be rewarded for being wrong. 

 

But don't worry. They'll make victor the villain to ensure viewers embrace the idea. 

Edited May 31, 20187 yr by ajsp35801

Soaps have been making rapists into leading and supporting men in their stories for decades.

 

Luke Spencer, Roger Thorpe, Todd Manning, the list goes on.  Michael Baldwin, attempted rape, gets dishonorable mention too.

Edited May 31, 20187 yr by DramatistDreamer

Who consults PHYLLIS about disclosing paternity results?

Michael Baldwin went to jail for his crimes. But that is neither here nor there. Attitudes about rape and consent in romance were very different in the 80's and early 90's than they are now. Romance writers whose past work has been reissued in more modern times  have to update their novels. We all know that. However, I don't recall a time where baby killing and baby kidnapping was ever the thing to do. And at least back then I expected people who committed those crimes to go to jail. 

22 minutes ago, ajsp35801 said:

Michael Baldwin went to jail for his crimes. But that is neither here nor there. Attitudes about rape and consent in romance were very different in the 80's and early 90's than they are now. Romance writers whose past work has been reissued in more modern times  have to update their novels. We all know that. However, I don't recall a time where baby killing and baby kidnapping was ever the thing to do. And at least back then I expected people who committed those crimes to go to jail. 

 

I know that Michael Baldwin served time for his crimes but it still stretched belief that he'd become such good friends with his victim and the man who nearly had to kill him to save her.

 

It's that same belief that has been stretched in order for Y&R to try to make baby killers leading men on the show.

 

To me, it's the same mechanism that soap writers have used to try to make leading and supporting men out of rapists.  It's the thing I've liked least from the genre. I wish the writers would think before they write.

 

But I guess they think it's all acceptable under the guise of escapism and viewers have allowed them to get away with it (except for viewers who have turned off the shows) for decades.

8 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I know that Michael Baldwin served time for his crimes but it still stretched belief that he'd become such good friends with his victim and the man who nearly had to kill him to save her.

 

It's that same belief that has been stretched in order for Y&R to try to make baby killers leading men on the show.

 

To me, it's the same mechanism that soap writers have used to try to make leading and supporting men out of rapists.  It's the thing I've liked least from the genre. I wish the writers would think before they write.

 

But I guess they think it's all acceptable under the guise of escapism and viewers have allowed them to get away with it (except for viewers who have turned off the shows) for decades.

 

Luke Spencer is definitely one of the more egregious examples. 

 

Roger Thorpe, OTOH, took YEARS for them to redeem, but I see your point.  

 

6 hours ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

But they didn't have their main/connected characters doing those things. Others would be brought on to do it. I can't imagine Adam Newnan causing the death of a baby and burning the fetus in 1991. Or him intentionally murdering a man without going to jail. 

 

I also didn't say Sharon wasn't the only one that was complicit. But just because others were doesn't absolve her. Knowing and continuing to lie and hide it makes Sharon a kidnapper. Being forgiven doesn't mean Sharon should be rewarded for being wrong. 

 

But don't worry. They'll make victor the villain to ensure viewers embrace the idea. 

 

Adam Newman, as written by MAB, was probably one of the most profoundly disturbed characters ever written.  Besides what you mentioned (which was horrible enough), he seduced Rafe and disfigured himself with that needle to the eye.  I tend to agree with you - don't know if a legacy character would have been written like this back in the day.

 

Sharon should have never kept that baby or hid him from his true father.  Her justifications for doing so were weak and yes, she is complicit.  This coming from a Sharon fan.

 

Now on to discussion about today's show...

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

 

23 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I know that Michael Baldwin served time for his crimes but it still stretched belief that he'd become such good friends with his victim and the man who nearly had to kill him to save her.

 

It's that same belief that has been stretched in order for Y&R to try to make baby killers leading men on the show.

 

To me, it's the same mechanism that soap writers have used to try to make leading and supporting men out of rapists.  It's the thing I've liked least from the genre. I wish the writers would think before they write.

 

But I guess they think it's all acceptable under the guise of escapism and viewers have allowed them to get away with it (except for viewers who have turned off the shows) for decades.

 

I agree. Never liked Michael around Christine. 

 

I see what you mean about it being the same mechanism. I agree to an extent. I cabt wholly agree though. There was a time in the not so distant past where a man couldn't  be said to rape his own wife. But he sure wasn't immune to being said to have murdered her or his children.  My point being murder and rape were viewed through different lenses by which sentiment permeated literature and film in different ways. 

 

I can't recall a time where a main character connected to core killed anyone (unborn or living) that wasn't in self defense during my early years of soap viewing. But I can recall many "ambiguous" rape situations. 

28 minutes ago, GMac said:

 

Luke Spencer is definitely one of the more egregious examples. 

 

Roger Thorpe, OTOH, took YEARS for them to redeem, but I see your point.  

 

 

Adam Newman, as written by MAB, was probably one of the most profoundly disturbed characters ever written.  Besides what you mentioned (which was horrible enough), he seduced Rafe and disfigured himself with that needle to the eye.  I tend to agree with you - don't know if a legacy character would have been written like this back in the day.

 

Sharon should have never kept that baby or hid him from his true father.  Her justifications for doing so were weak and yes, she is complicit.  This coming from a Sharon fan.

 

Now on to discussion about today's show...

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

 

 

Well, I can't lie, I loved Hilary's pregnancy reveal to Devon. They've been really sweet lately. However, only reason this baby is lab made is so the show has the option of playing a sperm switch/WTD later. *Sigh*

 

Jack is such a sad sack. I get why he's upset. If someone told me my daddy wasn't my daddy at this point in my life, I'd be sick too. But, John's gone. He's got all the memories and none tainted with this revelation. So, meh. 

 

Did the show forget that HWG owns Mergeron already.  Why not let Jack run that division? I am curious as to where he ends up. 

 

Why in the world is Nick leaving town?! I'm getting shades of Adam/Victor here. I don't want to see a custody battle over Christian. His parents are gone and Nick's the legal father.  The show should leave it alone. However, I did think Nick and Victor's argument was an interesting/clever way to have the truth come out.  

 

Arturo and Abby have chemistry. I like them. Surprisingly. But he will still be gone in 6 months

Mal's plotting a potential baby switch. And it's gonna be UGLY.

8 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

Mal's plotting a potential baby switch. And it's gonna be UGLY.

 

With Shauna? Possibly something similar to Gwen and Carly on ATWT? 

Edited May 31, 20187 yr by ajsp35801

Yep.

 

It's not a coincidence that Hevon essentially reunited just as Shauna & Charlie have also started growing closer.

49 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

Yep.

 

It's not a coincidence that Hevon essentially reunited just as Shauna & Charlie have also started growing closer.

 

I bet Shauna is already pregnant like Gwen was. They might as well make an absent Reed the daddy since he's gone. Let Shauna keep it a secret until after her baby "dies". Then bring a recast Reed back while she's mourning. Vikki is old enough to be a grandmother. 

 

I must say, I did enjoy that story on ATWT despite disliking singing Gwen Norbeck with a passion. 

Thom Bierdz is back... 

https://medium.com/@thombierd/what-racist-roseanne-did-to-my-hiv-positive-friend-ad8555075dd9

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 4:15 PM, Antoyne said:

Since I started watching Y&R in I think the mid 2000's, this past year has been the most Traci's ever been used and I absolutely love it. The Abbott's really feel like a full and whole family with her regular trips as of late, I hope this is something Mal keeps up even after Dina eventually passes away.

 

 

 

I love Traci. I enjoyed her scenes with Jack and wish she was around more often. I also understood why Jack was upset with Kyle and didn't want much to do with him. 

5 hours ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

 

 

Did the show forget that HWG owns Mergeron already.  Why not let Jack run that division? I am curious as to where he ends up. 

 

 

I saw someone speculate on another site that maybe Jack ends up teaming up with Victoria and starting a new cosmetics company. Maybe Ashley might even join them . I think it would be interesting if that happened and it would annoy Victor.

 

Also, I wonder where the Charlie/Shauna storyline is going. At first I thought Shauna was partially going to be used to usher in her brother who would interact with Devon/Hilary. I haven't learned what her brother's age is, I was thinking maybe he is older and closer to Devon/Hilary's age. I thought we may have seen a storyline where he was trying to get his life together and then ended up working at Hamilton-Winters. During the meantime they could also have Charlie/Shauna and their teen romance. But now we learn that the brother and Shauna's parents have moved to Colorado. So I guess that's not happening. I now think that Shauna  might end up living with Hilary ( and eventually Devon). I wonder if Lily/Cane might even take her into their home, but I think that's less likely.