Althouse: "You know what 'Survivor' is like? It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce."

December 21, 2010

"You know what 'Survivor' is like? It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce."

Things overheard at Meadehouse.

Wait. It needs some tweaking. It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce, and one partner will get all the assets.

18 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: There is not that much sex on Survivor, is that like marriage too?; 12/21/10, 9:53 AM
bagoh20 said...: At least in survivor the one winning all the assets earned them.; 12/21/10, 9:54 AM
bagoh20 said...: We should have divorce decided by a jury of your close friends.

I suggest the same for approval of the marriage.; 12/21/10, 9:57 AM
bagoh20 said...: VW: "suffcath" = a spouse; 12/21/10, 9:57 AM
traditionalguy said...: Survivor ends up with one lone victor.That is a narcissists dream, and the faster the better. It is based in part upon our primitive survival instinct that we should get others before they get us. We civilized folks are deprived of that experience, and we take care of one another in a covenant based relationship...which IS civilization. When your marriage is a winner take all contest decided in 5 years, then you married an unsafe person, and like the Bible story of Samson and Delilah, the ending will be tragedy. (Also see, Crack Emcee bio.); 12/21/10, 10:06 AM
Big Mike said...: You mean people still watch that show?; 12/21/10, 10:14 AM
Unknown said...: Mommy, are you trying to tell us something?; 12/21/10, 10:32 AM
The Scythian said...: The Colony is better. At least this last season (I didn't catch the first and I've heard it was more Mythbusters than Mad Max.)

Here's a sample.; 12/21/10, 10:32 AM
Abdul Abulbul Amir said...: "You know what 'Survivor' is like? It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce."

"It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce, and one partner will get all the assets."

What's the difference?; 12/21/10, 10:35 AM
Rose said...: In a real tribal situation, you'd be looking to build prosperity and ensure future survival for the entire tribe - something we have forgotten as a nation. Also, in that situation, you would elect the biggest, strongest, smartest best person to lead the tribe. Something we have also forgotten as a nation. Witness our despicable legislators at the state and federal level who have neither strength, honor or enough intelligence to read the bill, and seemingly no thought of building and ensuring a prosperous future.

Survivor is actually a pretty good snapshot of where we are - the predatory litigious orgs work to tear down the productive, block all progress and 'win' for winning's sake.; 12/21/10, 11:11 AM
Gahrie said...: Wait. It needs some tweaking. It's like marriage with the guarantee that you will divorce, and the woman will get all the assets.

Fixed that for you.; 12/21/10, 11:33 AM
Leland said...: + Rose

I used to watch Survivor until I realized it really was a snapshot of what is wrong with most societal interactions today. The winner this year managed to not backstab, but 3 of the final 4 did. They entered into agreements knowing that at somepoint they would break them to assure their own success.

They need a reverse Survivor. Take all the individuals and put them in individual camps. As you win what is now immunity, you get to pick someone to join your camp. The team with the larger camp at the end wins, and picks the MVP to get a million dollars.; 12/21/10, 12:13 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: That's why I don't like that show. It's about playing pretend loyalty. And then people act hurt when it's broken! It doesn't make any sense.; 12/21/10, 2:41 PM
Penny said...: Thirty nine day marriages sounds like a bad plan, however, since you set up this metaphor, I'll go along with it.

Season two was the only season that in any way reminded me of a marriage. Remember when Colby honored his commitment to Tina, taking her all the way to the finals, knowing full well that if he didn't take her to the finals, he would most assuredly win the million dollars.

He made that decision as a man, not as a game player.

Some say that was one of the dumbest Survivor decisions of all time. Personally? It gave me hope for humanity.

There are far too few Colbys in this world.; 12/21/10, 3:05 PM
michaele said...: Interesting that the most smarmy backstabber got no votes at all.That was gratifying. And, whoa...Fabio sure changed his look for the reunion show.; 12/21/10, 4:44 PM
Penny said...: Michaele, granted, I missed quite a few shows this season, but I was pretty well shocked that "the smarmy backstabber" didn't get a single vote this season.

Contrast that with the first season of Survivor when the man who played the best "game" took home the million. Remember Richard Hatch, friend to no one but himself?

Here we are so many years later, and now the jury votes pretty much the same way kids do in high school when selecting prom kings and queens.

"TOUGH decision to decide who you like the most or hate the least."

And then the REALLY thoughtful vote against "the person who NEEDS it less".

All pretty laughable, were it not a snapshot into our current American zeitgeist.; 12/21/10, 5:57 PM
Opus One Media said...: Hmmm and I always thought that Survivor was more like Beavis and Butthead dumbed down.; 12/22/10, 1:05 AM
jr565 said...: It's like a poligamist marriage where all the wives hate each other and one by one get divorced; 12/22/10, 12:27 PM