33 minutes ago, Taoboi said:

 LMAO!!! Now you stop sounding like how I sound every time they put Josh Morrow in dress pants and tight blue jeans. lol. But seriously Brandon's booty butt is just as much a cast member as Tide and the recently returned Febreeze. 

😁❤️ That booty deserves a spot in the intro if you ask me.

34 minutes ago, Taoboi said:

hehe. I be living for your commentary on Hayley. 

I'm happy to hear, haha. There would be a lot more if I was not so deep into OLTL classic binge. But I think next week I'll focus more on BTG. ❤️

17 minutes ago, Aback said:

I can see a pattern though. When Kat came out as a virgin to Tomas, nobody even remotely thought that Tomas might be a virgin too. He's a man, he's an adult and he's Latino - he must be good in bed (and that's what he turned out to be).

Same thing for Nathan. Nobody is up in their arms because a 16 year old boy is not a virgin. (but yeah he's a bad guy 😮 )

Well, you have Tyrell who is seemingly uninterested in sex at the moment (🙄) so he fulfills that quota.

I was hoping that line was tongue-in-check... because literally no teenager would EVER pose that question, especially to their gay parents. Which reminds me, Smitty deflected. Methinks Smitty and Martin are unable to talk about intimacy. (they're just overcoming their issues in that department after all)

 

 

The hypothetical 'dissolute' scenario you're depicting is as extreme and as bad as this repressive scenario where the parents are acting like punitive monks. No parent in their right mind would go 'You do you girl, have fun'. A mature approach would be to discuss the issue openly with your child, let them realize the pro's and con's and then let them live their life. 'Cause, spoiler alert: teenagers will have sex anyway. Sex is a basic human need and a human right.

It's the same people who still can't deal with sex and could never discuss it with a teen   Samantha and Nathan were not doing drugs. They were about to have consensual, protected sex. Which they literally have a right to. Martin and Smitty will just force the girl to do it some place unsafe. And them having so many supporters in the audience and in the writing team baffles me. It's fine I guess, but that's one of the reasons soaps are in decline.

@AbackI'm just not agreeing with so much of what you are saying. And that's okay. You are one of the members whose commentary I appreciate and there was meant to be a time where we would be on a different page... 

P.S I also think we generally need to give this storyline more time before we judge Martin and Smitty, just saying. There's plenty of time for conversations to take place. Nobody is saying that there is no need for that. Of course there is. But I'm not going to shame them for acting like they are. It's in their instincts to want to protect her. 

25 minutes ago, Maxim said:

😁❤️ That booty deserves a spot in the intro if you ask me.

I'm happy to hear, haha. There would be a lot more if I was not so deep into OLTL classic binge. But I think next week I'll focus more on BTG. ❤️

LMAO!!! 

 

Well, it being November Sweeps, I'm sure Kirsten Dimera...I mean Hayley will be busy scheming next week. And OLTL is a great show so I can understand the binging. 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

 

It's the same people who still can't deal with sex and could never discuss it with a teen   Samantha and Nathan were not doing drugs. They were about to have consensual, protected sex. Which they literally have a right to. Martin and Smitty will just force the girl to do it some place unsafe. And them having so many supporters in the audience and in the writing team baffles me. It's fine I guess, but that's one of the reasons soaps are in decline.

I wouldn't say this is why soaps are in decline, they have been in decline because of repetitive, plot driven writing.

But overall the show has been setting up Samantha having some sort of conflict with her parents and this is just the culmination of it. I don't think it's some condemnation of sex, it's just a story to drive conflict.

50 minutes ago, Taoboi said:

LMAO!!! 

 

Well, it being November Sweeps, I'm sure Kirsten Dimera...I mean Hayley will be busy scheming next week. And OLTL is a great show so I can understand the binging. 

From your lips to MVJ's ears. 😍

2 minutes ago, Maxim said:

From your lips to MVJ's ears. 😍

6 hours ago, MontyB said:

It's distracting to me. The actress is very capable, but I can't forget her age. I guess that's on me, but you can't tell me there are no very capable teen actresses in the ATL. 

It's distracting to me, too. The Samantha actress is good. She may pass for younger than 30, but no way does she pass as 16, and it takes me out of the story. The Nathan actor doesn't look 16 either.

It makes me wonder if they cast with an older actress because of the storyline dealing with sex -- as if they were afraid to approach it with a "real teen."

The defense can't be that this has been done forever with shows like 90210, the OC, etc., but that's a different world than a daily soap.

1 hour ago, Maxim said:

@AbackI'm just not agreeing with so much of what you are saying. And that's okay. You are one of the members whose commentary I appreciate and there was meant to be a time where we would be on a different page... 

Same!! ❤️ 

38 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

I wouldn't say this is why soaps are in decline, they have been in decline because of repetitive, plot driven writing.

Sure, but they used to push the envelope - and that's not been the case for at least 25 years. They have no impact on the 'culture'/'conversation'.

4 hours ago, Maxim said:

I see this has become some sort of discussion. And I didn't want to say anything, because I don't want people to think I'm stepping on toes. No. I'm just going to disagree with some of y'all.

FIRST - If I was Smitty/Martin I would be even MORE concerned with what Samantha is doing. Why? Samantha was portrayed as being this borderline infantile RIBBONS in her hair, dressed like Britney in her debut album-GIRL... for a looooong time. Just couple of months ago this girl was naively asking "What's gay sex like?" like it was something from a fairytale. Nothing of this signals to me this girl is ready for mature things and sex.

It would be a clear shock to me if I were her parent to see her transition so fast to this new situation. I would be very concerned. Again - they played her off too childish in the beginning  for her parents to be just... OKAY go for it. It doesn't matter that the actress is soon going to hit 31. The character STILL has that infantile vibe IMO.

SECOND - It's great that they are stepping away from the stereotype that all gay people are these overly free in terms of sex creatures that don't care about stuff like this... It's an ugly stereotype. The truth is - some gay people are more cautious and more... old-fashioned when it comes to things like this. And I like seeing this dynamic here. If her fathers were all "Do you girl... y'all have fun." ... it would have been such a cringe moment for me. And I'm sure SOME people in the audience would have used that to bash gay people. They look for every chance to do it. Thank you MVJ for making it impossible for them to do so. As as gay man... I felt this was the right decision.

Perfectly said. I'm on board with ALL of this.

 

Well...tbf...the cast of Aidan on GH begs to differ. Aging up happens on soaps just as much as those teen shows.  So I disagree. But since I already said my piece on that particular subject that only goes in circles versus the current discussion of the storyline itself...well...I will continue to hush on that one.  

14 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

It's distracting to me, too. The Samantha actress is good. She may pass for younger than 30, but no way does she pass as 16, and it takes me out of the story. The Nathan actor doesn't look 16 either.

It makes me wonder if they cast with an older actress because of the storyline dealing with sex -- as if they were afraid to approach it with a "real teen."

The defense can't be that this has been done forever with shows like 90210, the OC, etc., but that's a different world than a daily soap.

It was done on One Life to Live. Kristen Alderson was 17 at the time when Starr and Cole made love on screen and she became pregnant. I remember reading Erica Slezak was not happy about it.

1 minute ago, MontyB said:

It was done on One Life to Live. Kristen Alderson was 17 at the time when Starr and Cole made love on screen and she became pregnant. I remember reading Erica Slezak was not happy about it.

I remember that being a big deal then as well. 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

Same thing for Nathan. Nobody is up in their arms because a 16 year old boy is not a virgin. (but yeah he's a bad guy 😮 )

That is not why people see Nathan as a bad guy, and you know it.

 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

Well, you have Tyrell who is seemingly uninterested in sex at the moment (🙄) so he fulfills that quota.

I don't see Tyrell as uninterested in sex at all.Does he have to talk about sex to show he's "interested" in it?

 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

A mature approach would be to discuss the issue openly with your child, let them realize the pro's and con's and then let them live their life. 'Cause, spoiler alert: teenagers will have sex anyway. Sex is a basic human need and a human right.

"Let them live their life"? Sorry, that's not parenting, not without context. And yeah, we all know teens have sex, but sex between teenagers adds a lot more to think about and worry about.

No one will argue with "Sex is a basic human need and a human right," but this story isn't The Handmaid's Tale. You're leaving out all context that these teens are 16. 

 

2 hours ago, Aback said:

Samantha and Nathan were not doing drugs. They were about to have consensual, protected sex. Which they literally have a right to. Martin and Smitty will just force the girl to do it some place unsafe. And them having so many supporters in the audience and in the writing team baffles me. It's fine I guess, but that's one of the reasons soaps are in decline.

Clearly, you're never going to agree with the vast majority of us, and that's fine. I will never understand this "They literally have a right to" have sex, though, because it again omits all context.

Yes, we all know that saying "no" to kids leads them to rebel. That tale is as old as time and will forever be true. That doesn't mean parents should just accept their 16-year old daughter having sex on the living room couch with a boy she barely knows.

Do Martin and Smitty have "supporters" for their position? Yes, BUT.... I broadly support their "position," but I do think Martin was heavy-handed in his words and punishment. I give him some grace, though, because it would not be easy for a parent to deal with this. Besides, it's a soap, and a perfect solution here eliminates the drama.

And no, that's not why soaps are in decline. I don't even know what to say to that.

 

You wrote "...it’s slanted in favor of Martin’s parenting and Sam being portrayed as a sinful, manipulative, immature brat. When in reality her desire to have intimacy is perfectly normal and should be fulfilled. It makes me really uncomfortable."

I don't think it's slanted at all. I believe most of us simply agree with Martin's position even if we think he was too harsh. How was Samantha portrayed as sinful? Those are your words, but no one here is calling sex "sinful" and neither is the show. Manipulative? I don't see that either.

But immature? Completely. What she was about to do -- have sex on the living room couch -- is not intimacy. Very few parents would accept that logic.

I don't expect you to agree with any of us. I simply cannot ignore the age factor here. She's 16. He's 16. "Protected, consensual sex" can still make babies. It can still mess with the emotions of a 16-year old.

 

Would you see this differently if Samantha and Nathan were 15? 14? If so, that shows the ages of these characters matters.

 

On 10/31/2025 at 3:01 PM, Soaplovers said:

Next week's teaser looks interesting to me with a lot of Vanessa/Joey, and surprised to see the Derek story moving forward quicker than I thought it would.

Yep. It just might be the next beat in the Vanessa/Joey...which is also making me wonder if she is about to be a mob moll.

 

And that...re: Dark Derek...I do wonder if it's a fantasy or will it be a very good near-miss.

59 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

That is not why people see Nathan as a bad guy, and you know it.

 

I don't see Tyrell as uninterested in sex at all.Does he have to talk about sex to show he's "interested" in it?

 

"Let them live their life"? Sorry, that's not parenting, not without context. And yeah, we all know teens have sex, but sex between teenagers adds a lot more to think about and worry about.

No one will argue with "Sex is a basic human need and a human right," but this story isn't The Handmaid's Tale. You're leaving out all context that these teens are 16. 

 

Clearly, you're never going to agree with the vast majority of us, and that's fine. I will never understand this "They literally have a right to" have sex, though, because it again omits all context.

Yes, we all know that saying "no" to kids leads them to rebel. That tale is as old as time and will forever be true. That doesn't mean parents should just accept their 16-year old daughter having sex on the living room couch with a boy she barely knows.

Do Martin and Smitty have "supporters" for their position? Yes, BUT.... I broadly support their "position," but I do think Martin was heavy-handed in his words and punishment. I give him some grace, though, because it would not be easy for a parent to deal with this. Besides, it's a soap, and a perfect solution here eliminates the drama.

And no, that's not why soaps are in decline. I don't even know what to say to that.

 

You wrote "...it’s slanted in favor of Martin’s parenting and Sam being portrayed as a sinful, manipulative, immature brat. When in reality her desire to have intimacy is perfectly normal and should be fulfilled. It makes me really uncomfortable."

I don't think it's slanted at all. I believe most of us simply agree with Martin's position even if we think he was too harsh. How was Samantha portrayed as sinful? Those are your words, but no one here is calling sex "sinful" and neither is the show. Manipulative? I don't see that either.

But immature? Completely. What she was about to do -- have sex on the living room couch -- is not intimacy. Very few parents would accept that logic.

I don't expect you to agree with any of us. I simply cannot ignore the age factor here. She's 16. He's 16. "Protected, consensual sex" can still make babies. It can still mess with the emotions of a 16-year old.

 

Would you see this differently if Samantha and Nathan were 15? 14? If so, that shows the ages of these characters matters.

 

I agree with all of this. And in my personal life I would probably act similarly to Smitty/Martin. If that makes me a bad person or whatever then be it. My gut tells me it's just two fathers being very concerned about the daughter they love.