MovieChat Forums > Switched at Birth (2011) Discussion > "I'm not upset at you for telling them"

"I'm not upset at you for telling them"


Damn, Regina has some gall! Puts someone in a really horrible position like that, and thinks they should or would be automatically sorry and require her appeasement?

Was just glad that Bay didn't back down, at least not at that moment...

Oh, don't worry. I'm not apologizing.

but was disappointed she did later. Poor Bay.

Riddle wrapped inside an enigma, wrapped inside a taco.

reply

I honestly don't get why everyone says "poor Bay". All she did was act like a little baby. She didn't tell John and Katherine because it was the "right" thing to do it, she did it b/c she was butt hurt that she didn't know about it. Then when she does know, she acts like a 2 year old. Maybe that's the reason they didn't tell her to begin with, b/c she always overreacts to things. I really don't understand how people feel so sorry for Bay, the way she treated Travis tonight (someone who was trying to do something nice for her) was horrible.

reply

Travis did something 'nice' but.it ended up being super embarrassing. I would've died from mortification. She's thinking somebody actually cares about her art and it ends up being a big sham, Travis had sweet intentions, but the delivery left alot to be desired.

reply

Bay was feeling like a second class daughter because Regina was sharing stuff with Daphne and not with her. While she was upset about it, I don't know that she was specifically being spiteful. Her biomom was putting her entire family at risk by harbouring a fugitive from justice guilty of kidnapping a child (hard to find a worse thing to be guilty of without adding sexual assault to the mix) in their home.

Telling her parents and or telling the guy to leave is what REGINA should have done.

reply

She did it out of spite.

reply

Except that there was no good reason not to tell her parents. They needed to know or the whole freaking family would be risking jail time.

reply

the way she treated Travis tonight (someone who was trying to do something nice for her) was horrible.


lol, yeah it's totally "nice" to manipulate someone and their life wishes and dreams all because you think you 'love' them.

Riddle wrapped inside an enigma, wrapped inside a taco.

reply

He wasnt trying to manipulate her, he was trying to have her do an art show, something she really wanted. Heaven forbid that people actually try and do nice things for one another. He didnt want her to know he was the one behind it, how is that so wrong. He was trying to help her feel better and if she had not found out you wouldnt think anything is wrong with it. Bay is just a brat!

reply

How is that wrong? It is wrong because he made her believe that somebody loved her art all by themselves, and then he risked her running into the embarrassing situation she DID run into with the gallery owner and the critic. Putting people in embarrassing situations usually makes those people furious.

The one being a brat right now is you, because you let your hate for Bay cloud your judgment of Travis making such a poor choice for a first move on the girl he has a crush on.
Bay is not perfect, but she is not a monster. Travis is also not perfect, and he is definitely not a saint in this either.

Bay has every right to be mad. That doesn't mean that Travis can't still be a nice guy.

reply

Wow really, we are talking about a TV show, and yes I think Bay is a brat, but for you to call me a brat for me voicing my opinion and a TV character that is not real shows your maturity level!!

I never once said Bay was a monster but she is a brat b/c anytime something happens that she doesnt like she freaks out. How about how she used Travis, but I guess you're letting your "love" for Bay cloud you judgement.

Sincerely;
The BRAT!!

reply

Wow he , we are talking about a TV show


I am aware of that. Are you insinuating that I am not aware of that just because I am passionate?

and yes I think Bay is a brat, but for you to call me a brat for me voicing my opinion and a TV character that is not real shows your maturity level!!


Hahaha, really? You voice your opinion like a brat, you get called a brat. If all the reason you like a character's actions is "But he was so nice" and dislike another character's reaction is "But she's so ungrateful", then that makes you a brat as far as I am concerned. Unless you put up an actual logical argument, what you stated was bratty.

Also, putting exclamation marks into packs oftentimes is an indicator of someone's maturity level too... just a thought. ;)

I never once said Bay was a monster but she is a brat b/c anytime something happens that she doesnt like she freaks out.


So a good friend of hers essentially lying to her and betraying her trust and treating her like a child is not a reason to freak out?

There is nothing bratty about that. There are bratty things Bay did, but this is not one of them. If I found out that one of my best friends had bought a supposed career opportunity for me which isn't actually a career opportunity, I'd be freaked out. I suppose you'd be too.

How about how she used Travis, but I guess you're letting your "love" for Bay cloud you judgement.


I do love Bay, but I usually also love Travis. In THIS situation however, Travis did the wrong thing. He betrayed her trust.

Let's say you wanted to, like, publish a comic. And you got a letter from a publishing house telling you they want your story to publish. You'd be thrilled, right? Now you find out that it's a book-on-demand company and your best friend had bought the opportunity for you and made you believe that they actually valued you for YOUR ART.

Wouldn't you be pissed?

reply

"He wasnt trying to manipulate her, he was trying to have her do an art show,"

Trying to have her do = manipulation.

reply

I am afraid you directed that comment at me, not at kem. I agree with you.

reply

He wasnt trying to manipulate her, he was trying to have her do an art show, something she really wanted. Heaven forbid that people actually try and do nice things for one another. He didnt want her to know he was the one behind it, how is that so wrong. He was trying to help her feel better and if she had not found out you wouldnt think anything is wrong with it. Bay is just a brat!


If Travis had taken Bay's art work around to dozens of galleries and told the owners that he believed in this artist's work and asked them to take a look at it, and then, if the GALLERY OWNER said, "Yes, I admire this work. I would like to give this artist a show," that would have been wonderful.

But that is NOT what Travis did.

Travis rented a space and asked the owner of the art gallery to pretend to want to show Bay's work, when he had never even seen Bay's work. That is HORRIBLE.

To me, it shows that it is more important to Travis to feel like Bay's hero, than it is to support Bay by believing in her.

It's the same mistake Travis made when he told Garrett about Tank. Travis wants to protect Bay like she is his child. Bay needs a partner, not a parent. She does not need or want a caretaker. It's disrespectful.

reply

Maybe Travis didn't go about it in the best way, but he in no way was trying to disrespect her. He believed in her and therefor thought if he did this that maybe that was what she needed to not loose her confidence. Should she have been upset, maybe but she overreacted. I forgot that there are tons of Bay lovers on this board, so of course they are going to blindly defend her and her actions.

reply

Maybe Travis didn't go about it in the best way, but he in no way was trying to disrespect her. He believed in her and therefor thought if he did this that maybe that was what she needed to not loose her confidence. Should she have been upset, maybe but she overreacted. I forgot that there are tons of Bay lovers on this board, so of course they are going to blindly defend her and her actions.


I do love Bay. That's true.

But this really doesn't have anything to do with that. If someone had done the same thing to Daphne or even to Travis, I would feel the same way. It's wrong.

I agree that Travis wasn't TRYING to disrespect Bay. It's unconscious, which is what makes it so insidious. Travis is not a raging misogynist. He is blind to the more malignant undertones.

Bay's analogy that evening rings true:

"I find out that the only expert who's ever validated my work was paid off? I feel like a five-year-old who just found out her parents paid kids to come to her birthday party! But I want to earn it, or else it doesn't mean anything."

Bay spoke the truth when Travis intervened with Garrett, too:

"How dare you! You told Garret about what happened with Tank! So let him be confused or have him ask me. It is not your place to decide when people get to know my secrets. What if I told someone you were dating about your most private, horrible experience?"

BOTH times, Travis cut off Bay's legs. You don't do that to someone you love.

That's the sort of thing a person might do, if he or she wants to possess you, but it has nothing to do with love.

Travis has some growing up to do. I'm not saying he doesn't have real feelings for Bay. I'm sure he does. But at this point, Travis is more about ensuring that Bay belongs to him, than he is about loving Bay as a whole person.

reply

You're very judgmental

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

Maybe Travis didn't go about it in the best way, but he in no way was trying to disrespect her.


Very few people actively try to disrespect someone. Sadly, that makes them think they are entitled to feel like a victim when they are called out for doing it anyways.

He believed in her and therefor thought if he did this that maybe that was what she needed to not loose her confidence.


What he thought does not excuse what he did.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Should she have been upset, maybe but she overreacted.


No, she did not. She should have slapped him. I would have.

I forgot that there are tons of Bay lovers on this board, so of course they are going to blindly defend her and her actions.


I forgot that there are tons of Bay haters on this board, so of course they are going to blindly demonise her and her actions.

reply

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


And she knew that. Bay could have been nicer about the entire thing.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

*eye roll*

Of course. If Bay is actually caring about herself and her needs as the injured party, she's criticized for not being nice enough about it.

Except this wasn't an isolated incident. Does Travis need a skywriter to get the message through to him that Bay doesn't want him interfering in her life?

She could have been nicer? So could Travis. Travis could have not blabbed a very personal detail to the guy Bay was seeing and then, on the heels of that, could not have tricked her into thinking she was having an art show based on her talent.

I'm not advocating that Travis is the devil, but when he told Bay he can't stop? That was a little creepy.

I wish people could see it from Bay's perspective:

Pretend you're not even an artist. Imagine you're a musician and you think someone from a huge record label is coming to hear your songs based on word of mouth and people talking about how wonderful you are. Then you come to find out the music "scout" was someone paid by a so-called friend of yours and there never was any chance of getting a record deal.

Imagine you're a fashion designer and you have clothes on consignment in a store. You walk in to find all of your clothes have been sold. Wow! Awesome! Then you find out your friend bought all of them behind your back to give you a false sense of encouragement.

Finally, imagine you're Bay. You've had a crappy year and things are finally starting to feel slightly better. You're getting your own art showcase. And then imagine you find out it was all pretend. The guy who owns the studio was paid by your friend. Not only are you hurt, but you're humiliated and embarrassed and feeling patronized as all hell.

Are you really concerned with how 'nice' you're being to the person who set this all up behind your back? I would not be.

reply

Nobody is saying that WHAT Bay did was wrong; it's the HOW she went about it. Travis is her friend and she knew that he was only trying to brighten up a lousy year. (And I wouldn't compare simply renting out gallery space as the same thing as buying all your paintings.)

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

I'm still not clear how she went about it wrong.

She confronted him about it and got upset, rightfully so. She was frustrated. And again, rightfully so.

Putting myself in Bay's shoes, I'd be really frustrated and a little concerned if I asked someone to stop meddling in my life and their response was "I can't!" I know what the writers were trying to do, but it came off more obsessive on Travis's part.

It's difficult to be patient with someone like Travis who keeps making the same mistakes i.e. going behind Bay's back to "fix" her problems.

reply

It's difficult to be patient with someone like Travis who keeps making the same mistakes


SERIOUSLY? That's pretty much 75-80% of the characters on this show. 

reply

Nobody is saying that WHAT Bay did was wrong; it's the HOW she went about it. Travis is her friend and she knew that he was only trying to brighten up a lousy year. (And I wouldn't compare simply renting out gallery space as the same thing as buying all your paintings.)


Bay felt anger and she expressed it honestly. I like how she went about it.

And I would compare renting out a gallery space to buying all of your paintings. The end result is the same for Bay.

Bay thought she had accomplished something of great importance, and it was all a lie.

You don't do that to someone you love.

Even if Travis had managed to keep it a secret for the rest of Bay's life, you don't allow someone to believe a lie like that.

What Travis did is no different than if someone printed a fake college diploma and convinced a partner that he or she had graduated college, when in reality the person was several credits short.

It's the kind of thing that could damage Bay's reputation, if she had never discovered it. In the future, Bay would list representation by this gallery, as part of her portfolio. When future art galleries look at her work, one quick phone call could reveal it is all a lie.

And Bay would not have even known that she was lying.

That sort of thing could burn bridges in the local art community and damage her career as an artist.

As for what Travis had done in revealing Bay's secret to Garrett, I have no words for that. If I was Bay, I could not have continued a friendship with Travis after that.

I cannot think of any reason Travis might believe sharing that information with Garrett could help Bay.

The only reason I can imagine for Travis to take it upon himself to share Bay's private story is because he did not want Garrett to sleep with Bay. Travis wanted to convince Garrett that Bay was too fragile and off-limits.

That was not Travis's place.


reply

I don't see how the comparison works. Buying those paintings would hace hurt her but not simply renting out that gallery space where actual critics and passersby could finally looked at and even bought her work. Travis just wanted to cheer her up with something that he knew she loved: art.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

Maybe this article will help:

http://www.artbusiness.com/how_to_show_your_art_at_a_gallery.html

Do you ever wonder how a gallery decides to give a new artist a first show?

If you're like many artists, you probably think it's all about the art. You waltz your oeuvre through a gallery's doors, the owner swoons; game over. Right? No, not really. According to gallery owners, that's not at all the way it works. Sure, gallery owners have to be impressed with your work and like it enough to want to show it, but according to them, that's only a start; there's far more to it than that. Plenty of other puzzle pieces have to fall into place in order to seal the deal (or fall out of place in order to kill it).

Getting a first show with a gallery is much more than an impersonal arrangement between two independent entities where you supply the art, they supply the wall space, and then you go on about your business while they do all the rest. You and the gallery owner are about to enter into a business relationship, a partnership of sorts, and hopefully one that will have seriously positive consequences over time. Whether you're aware of it or not, galleries always look to the future, at least the established ones do, the ideal outcome for them being mutually beneficial and constantly evolving long-term relationships with the artists whose art they choose to exhibit. So what exactly do gallery owners look for in addition to your art when deciding whether or not to give you that all-important first show (and hopefully many more to come)?

Let's start with your life and career as an artist, not what you're up to today, but rather what the prognosis might be down the road. Gallery owners not only have to like your art now, but they will also do their best to assess your potential for growth and development into the future. They're aware that the payoff is not always immediate, and that if they're going to invest time, money, publicity and wall space in your art, they want to at least see some promise for an evolving, engaging and ongoing narrative. In other words, they look for signs that you're serious about your art, have some sense of a game plan, guiding principle or philosophy, and are committed to being an artist and showing your art for many years to come. There's hardly anything galleries hate more than to back artists who suddenly decide to do something else with their lives and poof off into the ether forever. Vanishing artists and one-hit wonders do not make a gallery look good.

As for your work, dealers consistently describe their ideal artists with words like ambitious, original, risk-taking, bold, inspiring, and so on. They want to hear your whole story, not just today's headlines, but where your journey is taking you, and what drives, motivates and inspires your creative process. Do you have more than one idea? Do you have a vision? Is that vision clear and well defined and articulated? Are you breaking new ground, exploring new territory? Or are you rehashing the past, stuck in a rut, stagnant or backing yourself into a corner? Are you productive and serious about spending time in the studio? Most importantly, do you have a significant body of current work that is complete (or nearly complete), fresh, original and HAS NOT been shown or exhibited elsewhere... or if not, are you capable of creating one by a to-be-determined date or deadline?

Galleries do their best to sift out artists who may be making good art today, but who might at the same time have limited futures, be more flukes than for real, or who may simply end up beached with nowhere to go.

So OK. Enough about art and vision and commitment and all that lofty intangible stuff. Let's talk business. Simply put, galleries prefer that the artists who they work with have some knowledge of the business and more importantly, an appreciation of what a successful business partnership or relationship involves and how it grows over time. Or if you're early in your career and don't really know that much, they expect you to at least express a willingness to learn; you have to be open to that. Take qualities like perseverance or endurance for example. As previously mentioned, gallery owners almost always look well beyond the first show. Optimally, they prefer to represent artists who they can work with for years or even decades to come. They value artists who understand their role in the partnership and who realize that both parties must cooperate and progress together, even in times of hardship or adversity, in order to maximize results. In other words, gallery owners really really appreciate artists who are easy to work with. To repeat... REALLY.

For example, have reasonable expectations about what a first show means. It's neither the answer nor the end, but rather the beginning, and only one step along the way, a single line on your resume. Let's say you have a first show and sales are modest, but the overall response is good, and the gallery is reasonably pleased about how things went. The owners know that some artists will be encouraged by an outcome like this as well, while others might get disappointed, angry or depressed. As a result, they do their best to figure out in advance whether you're an artist who understands the bigger picture and are more likely to fall into the "encouraged" category than one who's in this for the instant and more likely to go negative if things turn out less than perfect. Simply put, big-picture artists are more likely to get first shows than ones who lack a broader perspective. There's hardly anything gallery owners like less than complaining, upset, melancholy, despondent artists, so be sure to check any such inclinations at the door.

Continuing with the critical questions a gallery attempts to answer when meeting with you... Do you love making art and are you enthusiastic about showing it in public regardless of how much or how little might sell? Do you have an attitude about showing and exposing your work that resonates with that of the gallery? Do you express a desire to move in the same direction as the gallery? If you can answer yes to questions like these and they're impressed with your art as well, you're more than likely in. On the flip side, a gallery tries to avoid artists who view getting a show as a career move above all else, who deliberately kiss up, who expect the gallery to sell everything, who might blame the dealer if not enough sells, or who don't seem to understand how much effort a gallery puts into each and every show they present regardless of the outcome.

Hopefully you're understanding in these regards, excited about your opportunity to work with a gallery, express a willingness to cooperate, and view this as a joint venture rather than as an antagonistic relationship. Not only do you have to demonstrate a serious concern for your art, but you must also make clear that you intend to be straightforward, communicative, professional, disciplined, honest and committed to the success of the gallery. This is what galleries like to see in artists who they work with.

They also pay attention to how well the two of you get along, not only in general conversations about art, but more specifically, in hashing out the scope or details of possible shows. Do you seem to be an artist who will trust a gallery to do its job, recognize how hard the gallery intends to work on your behalf, and be willing to consider their advice or suggestions? Or are you more of a contrarian? Some artists think they know better. Some feel the need to instruct dealers on how they expect to be treated or how to display their art; a few even have the temerity to tell galleries how to run their businesses. If that's your deal, then as far as gallery owners are concerned, you are more than welcome to open your own space and show your work there. Galleries know what's best for them; believe it.

On a more personal level, time and time again gallery owners describe their ideal relationships with artists the same way people describe friendships-- or even love interests. Personalities have to match; everyone has to understand as well as appreciate each other. Some of the questions gallery owners repeatedly ask themselves in these regards... Can I see myself becoming friends with this person? Can we have dinner together, go places together, or enjoy the same activities? Do we like each other? Do we get along? Are conversations in synch and harmonious? Do we respect each other's opinions? The answers to questions like these often determine whether an artist gets a first show or keeps on looking. It's that simple and no more complicated.

Experience also counts, of course, especially with more established galleries. Artists who've been around the block a few times are generally easier to work with and have broader understandings of the ups and downs of the business. So given the choice between two artists, one with more experience and one with less, all else being equal, many galleries are inclined to go with experience. The most established galleries almost exclusively show artists with numerous career accomplishments and lengthy resumes. They're particularly concerned about whether the art and artist have been critically written about, whether they've exhibited at prestigious venues, what sort of awards or distinctions they've received, and even whether they have followings and how large those followings are. No matter how precocious, promising or impressive a younger artist might be, lack of an established track record may well present too much of a risk to these kinds of galleries. So know going in that if you approach major galleries with a minor resume and they turn you down, it's not necessarily because they don't like your art.

And in closing, please oh please keep in mind at all times that a gallery is not an entity that exists to serve you. Be assured that you will never show anywhere if that's the way you think. Believe it or not, some artists actually dare galleries to sell their art or worse yet, swagger on in and ask, "What can you do for me?" You know what galleries can do for artists like these? Absolutely nothing except to show them the door and thank them for stopping by. So can the attitude, understand that it's all about cooperation and working together, and hopefully in tandem, the two of you will get exactly where you want to go.


So you see, Bay thought she had accomplished all of THAT, and actually, Bay had accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Can you imagine how devastating that would be to an artist?

She believed that she had developed a REAL relationship with a gallery, and the man had not even looked at her art. He had no idea who she was.

Bay would have gone on to list this gallery on her resume and anyone who would have called the gallery owner would have discovered that the whole showing was a lie.

For Travis to put Bay in that kind of a situation is inexcusable, if you ask me. It is messing where he does NOT belong.

It would have been better if he had simply purchased all of her art work. At least that would have been honest, and it would not have hurt her future with anyone else.

reply

I'm not advocating that Travis is the devil, but when he told Bay he can't stop? That was a little creepy.


Oh, wow. You are RIGHT.

I had not even zoned in on that line, but I remember it now. It IS creepy.

For a while now, I have had this theory going in my mind. It might be silly, but I'll share it anyway. (I posted part of it on another message board, so I will copy and paste it here.)

Lizzy Weiss tweeted that Season 5 was going to introduce another intense, controversial, and important storyline (akin to the Title IX investigation in Season 4).

What if the writers are going to introduce a domestic violence story, with Travis as the perpetrator and Bay as the victim?

It would be a more interesting story, if Travis is broken, too, and becomes controlling and abusive, because of his insecurities. I re-watched the last few minutes of the Season 4 Finale last night, and Daphne clearly tells Bay what a great guy Travis is (and how Bay should go for it with him). That's so funny, though, because just two years earlier, Daphne was telling Emmett, "Travis is an angry guy."

That's how I have always seen Travis. He has been in more fist fights than any other character. Nothing has changed. He is a bully.

I still remember Travis flailing his arms and hands all around in the air, making fun of the way Noah talked. That's why Noah called him a seal. Travis started it, with his bullying. Not only were the students in the pilot program trying, but Noah was dealing with losing his hearing. Travis was a jerk to all of them, especially during the uprising.

Plus, the idea that Travis was truly ready to go all vigilante on the dude from the food truck robbery scares the bejeezus out of me. He was waiting in the shadows outside the guy's workplace. That's insane. Who does that?

Sometimes I wonder if the writers are not setting up Travis to be in an abusive relationship with Bay, but then, I remind myself that Bay has been through so much trauma in the last couple of years, and I tell myself that there is NO WAY the writers would do that to her next season.

Still, one of the hallmarks of abusive people is that they fall in love quickly and completely. Travis sure did with Bay.

Emmett's first kiss was delivered with the words "I like you."

Whereas Travis's first kiss was delivered with the proclamation "I love you, Bay." They have not even gone out on a date yet. Travis is moving things mighty fast. He knows Bay as a friend, but does he REALLY know Bay?

I wonder if Bay will ever tell Travis that she is NOT the one who vandalized the construction site. Travis told her that he is impressed she is a felon. He doesn't know the truth about Bay's decision yet. Travis doesn't know how that played into Emmett feeling completely abandoned by Bay on their graduation day.

I wonder how Travis will take revelations like that, when he is Bay's partner?

Would the show be ballsy enough to make Travis a perpetrator of domestic violence?

Would the show be ballsy enough to make Bay a victim, yet again?

Realistically speaking, after surviving an assault in the way that Bay has, and after being switched and feeling rejected by all of her parents, I could see Bay being insecure enough to stay with Travis, despite signs he is growing controlling and abusive.

Would Melody ignore those signs? Would the Kennishes? Would Regina?

Quite often family members feel helpless as to how to save someone who is in a relationship plagued by domestic violence. It could be a really interesting plot.

reply

 You people are going off the deep end...

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

I forgot that there are tons of Bay haters on this board, so of course they are going to blindly demonise her and her actions.


^This pretty much.

Saying Travis screwed up doesn't mean he's a monster. Saying Bay was wronged doesn't make her a saint.

In this situation, Bay was right to be upset. It's a little baffling that people are judging the appropriate level of reaction Bay was supposed to have. Especially since of all people, Travis isn't known for his calm demeanor. He's cold-clocked at least two people on the show.

reply

^This pretty much.


Are you kidding me???

I haven't been around here for awhile but last I checked, Bay was usually defended while Daphne was getting kicked around.

In this situation, Bay was right to be upset.


No one has said otherwise though. There are others who thought she was simply too harsh.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

Well, Travis IS a nice guy, but he is awfully clumsy. I'm afraid he just doesn't think enough about what he does, or else he would have realised that doing this wasn't the best idea.

He should apologise profusely for the lie, but unless he makes another mistake as big as this, I do think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. One can always be furious at him if he doesn't learn his lesson.

reply

Hit the nail on the head more than once with your post. I have a hard time ever even thinking "poor Bay" lol My gosh, she's just such a whiner. And if anything, in the same vein as what you were talking about with Travis, maybe it should be poor "every guy she's ever been with." I can understand some of her upset at Travis, but it's a bit of a shame that she never got any biteback about her using him to make Emmett jealous and not apologizing for the violence it caused.

reply

I hated Bay for that. Always has to rain on the parade.

reply

Puts someone in a really horrible position like that, and thinks they should or would be automatically sorry and require her appeasement?


Well that was an awful, back-stabbing thing she did to her mother without any warning whatsoever.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

Well that was an awful, back-stabbing thing she did to her mother without any warning whatsoever.


Well, her mother is a horribly neglectful woman who has repeatedly hurt her daughter time and time again. I have less than zero sympathy for Regina.

Regina who lied for thirteen years. Regina who pretty much stalked her biological daughter from afar but who cannot seem to give her the time of day when she reunites with her, thus constantly making her bio daughter feel like a second-class citizen. Lastly, Regina, who didn't feel the need to take Bay aside privately when she dropped the bombshell of knowing about the switch and instead, ambushed her and her parents while Daphne got a private conversation about it.

Regina is quite frankly a lying liar who lies. So, does Bay owe her anything? Nah, not from my vantage point.

reply

You're being very judgmental about Regina's decision surrounding learning about tg he switch. Not getting Bay involved in her personal troubles doesn't mean she was treating Bay like a second class citizen. And you just admitted that Bay was being petty and vengeful; this is a desperate father's life she's meddling in.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

I'm not being judgmental. And I didn't admit that Bay was being petty or vengeful or spiteful.

I'll admit that I don't like Regina. I think she's consistently selfish. Regina made the choice to move her fugitive boyfriend in on the Kennish property. This is the second time she's made them culpable in a felony. The first time was marrying Angelo so he could stay in the country.

I know people think all John and Kathryn have to do is say "I had no idea!" and that gets them off the hook, but it doesn't. Regina made all of them accessories...twice. Not only that, but if Eric was really so worried about his ex, if she was that dangerous, then maybe Regina should have been more concerned that she was on the Kennish property and had been in close proximity to Bay.

I guess I just don't understand why Regina elicits sympathy from people at this point anymore. Or why she ever did.

As far as Eric, he isn't that innocent either.

reply

Well Bay was being petty and spiteful over the imagined special relationship between Regina and Daphne. Are you really using the illegality excuse to judge Regina as selfish? She knows the difference between right and wrong; that marriage was to help keep Angelo for the girls' sake and as for the second one, this was long after she actually went down to Atlanta to vet his story! And you're all forgetting that there is no drama without conflict so the complaints are confusing. W

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

[deleted]

Bay was like "why didn't you tell me", and then she is told, and bang she tells her parents. so yeah why would you not get a little mad about it, and would you tell her something in the future.

Everyone keeps saying i'm paranoid, it must be a conspiracy.

reply

I thought of it as good of her to say. She was making sure her child knew that she wasn't angry with her. I interpreted it as her acknowledging that Bay did nothing wrong.

Please don't feed the trolls.

reply

I don't see how anyone can say Bay told John and Kathryn about Eric's fugitive status out of spite. She didn't interrupt the baby shower, she didn't run to them as soon as she found out. Nor did she blurt it out. She was clearly conflicted about telling her parents. She wasn't even sure she should tell them. If Bay were being spiteful, she'd have interrupted the baby shower or went and told them immediately. She clearly had some reservations about it. I think she made the right choice. Imagine the cops showing up like they did at the end of the episode, and J&K didn't know.

reply

I don't see how anyone can say Bay told John and Kathryn about Eric's fugitive status out of spite. She didn't interrupt the baby shower, she didn't run to them as soon as she found out. Nor did she blurt it out. She was clearly conflicted about telling her parents. She wasn't even sure she should tell them. If Bay were being spiteful, she'd have interrupted the baby shower or went and told them immediately. She clearly had some reservations about it. I think she made the right choice. Imagine the cops showing up like they did at the end of the episode, and J&K didn't know.


I agree.

While I could understand Bay harboring anger against Regina and even wanting to hurt Regina to prove to herself that Regina cares, I think that telling John and Kathryn was such a right thing to do that I cannot really imagine the alternative.

To me, it wasn't spite as much as it was sound judgment.

I wish Bay had portrayed such wisdom when she chose to take the fall for Daphne. That decision was wrong, no matter how beautiful Bay's intentions. At least this time, Bay chose to do what is right.

reply