I had an aunt who let my cousin who was 13-14 years old bring her boyfriend (who was an adult lying about his age) into the apartment when she wasn't there just to avoid arguments. Long story short my cousin ended up with four children by her early 20s and later a drug problem.

I don't see anything wrong with the storyline because I've seen what happens to teenagers when parents take too much of a "do what you want" attitude.

In my opinion, they previewed all of the Samantha/Tyrell "sex business" (and the motivations behind it) a few days ago in a conversation between Vernon & Anita. 

Anita was always "in charge" of Nicole, because all Nicole ever needed was a little nurturing.  Vernon was always "in charge" of Dani (the "Dani Whisperer"), because Dani was far more impulsive and non-thinking.  (It wasn't necessarily said out loud, but what I gathered was that Vernon had to spank Dani's ass sometimes.) 

Tyrell is more of a Nicole (who only needs a little nurturing), and Samantha is more of a Dani, who jumps the gun without thinking and might occasionally need her ass spanked.  I believe that's why Martin came down so hard on her about her impulsive decision with the lil boyfriend.   

2 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

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

That's exactly my point. Nobody cares if Nathan's 16 and has already lost his virginity. Because he's a guy.

Quote

Clearly, you're never going to agree with the vast majority of us, and that's fine

I couldn't care less about agreeing with 'the vast majority'.

Quote

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

My point is - as already stated - that soaps used to push the envelope. Heck, 1991's Victoria Newman was a thousand times more modern than this. These days, you can't even have Naomi get an abortion.

Quote

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

They were treating Samantha as if she committed a crime or a sin. 
Manipulative --> getting Tyrell's phone and texting Nathan.

Quote

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.

Let's be honest and chalk up the living room situation to the lack of sets please...

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

Of course age plays a factor. And she's 16. She's not 15. She's not 14. And she was doing things with someone her age she's known for a while. Oh and for what it's worth, she's the age of consent in her state so I guess you guys want to change the laws?

Edited November 2Nov 2 by Aback

18 minutes ago, Broderick said:

I believe that's why Martin came down so hard on her about her impulsive decision with the lil boyfriend.   

Well as long as she don't wind up climbing out of a tree like her auntie...

16 minutes ago, Aback said:

That's exactly my point. Nobody cares if Nathan's 16 and has already lost his virginity. Because he's a guy.

Huh? You 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)."

My point? That isn't why anyone thinks Nathan is a bad guy is NOT because he's a guy who's not a virgin. It's because if what he SAID about Samantha to other guys -- the way he locker-room talked about her like she was nothing but a piece of ass. THAT'S why he a bad guy.

And I don't know why you think we're supposed to "care" about Nathan in this instance anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, Aback said:

I couldn't care less about agreeing with 'the vast majority'.

Never thought you did. Again, not my point.

 

22 minutes ago, Aback said:

My point is - as already stated - that soaps used to push the envelope. Heck, 1991's Victoria Newman was a thousand times more modern than this. These days, you can't even have Naomi get an abortion.

I'm on record that soaps don't do enough envelope-pushing. I'm on record that Naomi should have mentioned abortion. The truth is that I'm critical of BTG for one thing or another every day. I know some people here get annoyed with my nitpicking.

Still, I don't think that has anything to do with this situation. It's not "pushing the envelope" to have Martin and Smitty tell Samantha that sex is a beautiful and natural thing and to go for it.

 

26 minutes ago, Aback said:

They were treating Samantha as if she committed a crime or a sin. 
Manipulative --> getting Tyrell's phone and texting Nathan.

I'll give you the point about the phone. But no, Samantha was not treated like she committed a crime or a sin. You're using loaded words that a 16-year old would use when arguing with her parents.

 

28 minutes ago, Aback said:

Let's be honest and chalk up the living room situation to the lack of sets please...

LOL Let's not. You're acting as if we should just ignore the decision to undress and have sex on the couch in the family living room.

 

30 minutes ago, Aback said:

Of course age plays a factor. And she's 16. She's not 15. She's not 14. And she was doing things with someone her age she's known for a while. Oh and for what it's worth, she's the age of consent in her state so I guess you guys want to change the laws?

Thanks for admitting age plays a factor. Because you think it was OK to have sex at 16 because of the age of consent omits too much context for me.

And no, I don't want to change any laws. No one here suggested Nathan would be in legal peril if he had sex with Samantha.

For the record @ranger1rg, you explain your point of view which comes across like the constructive criticism you said it was. We don't always agree, but I don't feel it's coming from anything less and/or obvious than that. There have even been times when I think about something differently because of how you worded it. Like when we had that extended discussion over dialogue and writing styles on this show for example. 

3 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:

I had an aunt who let my cousin who was 13-14 years old bring her boyfriend (who was an adult lying about his age) into the apartment when she wasn't there just to avoid arguments. Long story short my cousin ended up with four children by her early 20s and later a drug problem.

I don't see anything wrong with the storyline because I've seen what happens to teenagers when parents take too much of a "do what you want" attitude.

Exactly. And keeping in mind how this girl was incredibly infantile just months ago (I notice they've changed the way she is dressed a bit... in an attempt to make her appear slightly more grown lately) - it's too big of bite... too sudden... for me to swallow. I mean in the first couple of weeks Samantha had scenes where she was soooooo child-like. I don't know if I'm the only one that noticed that. You don't go from the girl with the ribbons and pink outfits to f-cking on the living room sofa in less than 8 months without your parents freaking the f-ck out. It's so sudden of a change that it makes all kinds of alarm bells go off in anyone's head. If she was just months younger... imagine that scenario... if she was 15 and 8 months... and not officially 16... how would people react? Are just mere 4-5 months more enough to say - OK, now it's fine since you are officially 16. It's not. You don't automatically become mature enough just because you hit a certain number. That's just my opinion. Samantha needs to slow down and think... and realize that her fathers just love her and want the best for her.  

22 minutes ago, Taoboi said:

For the record @ranger1rg, you explain your point of view which comes across like the constructive criticism you said it was. We don't always agree, but I don't feel it's coming from anything less and/or obvious than that. There have even been times when I think about something differently because of how you worded it. Like when we had that extended discussion over dialogue and writing styles on this show for example. 

I appreciate that, @Taoboi.  My criticism is meant to be constructive, so I'm glad to know you see it that way.

I really like this soap -- regardless of how much "complaining" I do. I just think that when little things are cleaned up, the most important elements shine brighter. Our discussion over dialogue/writing styles is an example of that.

I realize that some people aren't happy with my posting style, but I just don't feel like typing "I feel" or "I believe" before everything I say so that others know it's my opinion -- and not necessarily some factual final answer. We're all giving our opinions here, so I don't feel the need to do that.

I do enjoy reading others' views, and I've learned plenty from other longtime soap fans. It's also why I've asked another poster here "What's wrong with the breakdown?" multiple times. I'm not trying to argue but I think criticism should come with an explanation.

This board became so much more enjoyable when BTG hit the air, and it's a great respite from "real life."

P.S.  I enjoy your posts, too! We're never going to agree on every single thing, but you help make this board a good time.

 

Just now, ranger1rg said:

I appreciate that, @Taoboi.  My criticism is meant to be constructive, so I'm glad to know you see it that way.

I really like this soap -- regardless of how much "complaining" I do. I just think that when little things are cleaned up, the most important elements shine brighter. Our discussion over dialogue/writing styles is an example of that.

I realize that some people aren't happy with my posting style, but I just don't feel like typing "I feel" or "I believe" before everything I say so that others know it's my opinion -- and not necessarily some factual final answer. We're all giving our opinions here, so I don't feel the need to do that.

I do enjoy reading others' views, and I've learned plenty from other longtime soap fans. It's also why I've asked another poster here "What's wrong with the breakdown?" multiple times. I'm not trying to argue but I think criticism should come with an explanation.

This board became so much more enjoyable when BTG hit the air, and it's a great respite from "real life."

P.S.  I enjoy your posts, too! We're never going to agree on every single thing, but you help make this board a good time.

 

I enjoy your posts immensely... along with @Taoboi and others too. This topic would not be the same without them. I would definitely add @Aback in that group too. Even if today we are compleeetely on the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this one conversation. I like SON better than most other places on the world wide web... because here we have the boldest and frankest of opinions. It's not just some clique where everyone repeats the same thing. Yes, we ca be a tough crowd sometimes... but that's what's charming about us. 😂

19 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

I appreciate that, @Taoboi.  My criticism is meant to be constructive, so I'm glad to know you see it that way.

I really like this soap -- regardless of how much "complaining" I do. I just think that when little things are cleaned up, the most important elements shine brighter. Our discussion over dialogue/writing styles is an example of that.

I realize that some people aren't happy with my posting style, but I just don't feel like typing "I feel" or "I believe" before everything I say so that others know it's my opinion -- and not necessarily some factual final answer. We're all giving our opinions here, so I don't feel the need to do that.

I do enjoy reading others' views, and I've learned plenty from other longtime soap fans. It's also why I've asked another poster here "What's wrong with the breakdown?" multiple times. I'm not trying to argue but I think criticism should come with an explanation.

This board became so much more enjoyable when BTG hit the air, and it's a great respite from "real life."

P.S.  I enjoy your posts, too! We're never going to agree on every single thing, but you help make this board a good time.

 

 Great post.

This board should be about differing takes, opinions and interests. I enjoy BTG but not going to pretend it is w/o fault.

The fact that we get to 100 or so pages each month is testament to the overall interest in the show.

4 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

 Great post.

This board should be about differing takes, opinions and interests. I enjoy BTG but not going to pretend it is w/o fault.

The fact that we get to 100 or so pages each month is testament to the overall interest in the show.

Amen.

24 minutes ago, Maxim said:

I enjoy your posts immensely... along with @Taoboi and others too. This topic would not be the same without them. I would definitely add @Aback in that group too. Even if today we are compleeetely on the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this one conversation. I like SON better than most other places on the world wide web... because here we have the boldest and frankest of opinions. It's not just some clique where everyone repeats the same thing. Yes, we ca be a tough crowd sometimes... but that's what's charming about us. 😂

Back. At. You, @Maxim

 

4 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

 Great post.

This board should be about differing takes, opinions and interests. I enjoy BTG but not going to pretend it is w/o fault.

The fact that we get to 100 or so pages each month is testament to the overall interest in the show.

So true. The other soaps would love half the attention and interest that GATES gets.

I don't agree with everything ranger says on the daily about BTG (in fact I often disagree) and we have clashed before on other topics. But I don't have a problem with genuine critique vs. someone who's just here laughing at the peons for enjoying the show, or someone angry their fanfic isn't onscreen. Therefore I don't have a problem with anything ranger has said.

I feel like we have to have outgrown having this same meta discussion by now though. It's been almost a year. Every few weeks there's a claim that this thread is a hugbox of positivity brooking no criticism. But there is criticism, both positive and negative, every !@#$%^&*]in' day lol. Seven days a week! Let's retire this miniature debate at least. People are gonna talk about the show however they like in here. All I care about is if they engage with what they're actually watching vs. their own baggage.

Edited November 3Nov 3 by Vee

Amen.

3 hours ago, Vee said:

I don't agree with everything ranger says on the daily about BTG (in fact I often disagree) and we have clashed before on other topics. But I don't have a problem with genuine critique vs. someone who's just here laughing at the peons for enjoying the show, or someone angry their fanfic isn't onscreen. Therefore I don't have a problem with anything ranger has said.

I feel like we have to have outgrown having this same meta discussion by now though. It's been almost a year. Every few weeks there's a claim that this thread is a hugbox of positivity brooking no criticism. But there is criticism, both positive and negative, every !@#$%^&*]in' day lol. Seven days a week! Let's retire this miniature debate at least. People are gonna talk about the show however they like in here. All I care about is if they engage with what they're actually watching vs. their own baggage.

Preach