CAUTION: CONTAINS SPOILERS for Ultimate Baking Championship!!
It’s like nothing surprises me anymore, in this show, after we lost Robert a couple weeks ago.
Casey, who was the only one with two wins, and has been consistently really strong, serving a “disaster” of a collapsed cake in the first challenge, and then getting sent home? Not a surprise.
Clement, who’s one of the absolute best, only scoring 11 points out of 20 in the skills challenge, even though his blueberry looked fantastic? Not really a surprise.
Adalberto, who’s been in the bottom consistently, having a great week and actually tieing with Juan and Molly in the Master Challenge? – Actually, this was a pleasant surprise! I was so glad to see Adalberto make a comeback. That black forest cake looked phenomenal! Keep it up, Adalberto, we’re cheering for you!
(I still miss Robert, though. This just isn’t right without him. He’s supposed to still be here.)
But, look at Christopher stepping into the spotlight! The first contestant on this show to get a PERFECT score on anything – okay, Chris! We see you. I was so pleased for him; that panna cotta dessert that he made was really a masterpiece. Watching Duff and Zac lavish praises upon it, was the most satisfying moment of the night. Wow. I was beginning to think maybe the judges just didn’t award perfect scores on principle. Even though Chris only placed fifth in the Master Challenge, this victory carried him through to win the whole night.
Florencia seems to have just scraped by again. I’m a bit worried about her. Both of her desserts were good (and her second one was jaw-droppingly beautiful, with that immaculate mirror glaze and chocolate ball on top, encircled in a rustic tart shell – “a study in dichotomy,” as Duff said), but, regarding the actual flavors and textures, she failed to really “innovate” either the gas station coffee cake or the Sachertorte. She’s clearly very good. I hope she has a great week next week.
And, Molly and Juan: they were amazing as usual, nothing new to report there.
Finally, just for lols: at the beginning of the show, when they were doing the recap of last week, my husband paused the TV to talk to me about something, and froze the screen on an image of poor Rochelle looking distressed; here’s a very silly, very unflattering little doodle that I did of her face while listening to my husband talk (sorry, Rochelle):
Anyway, HERE’S THE RECAP:
Skills Challenge: Innovating Gas Station Treats: contestants got to choose their item to innovate in order of last week’s leaderbord, so Molly went first. Points awarded out of 20.
Molly: peanut butter pretzels → Peanut Butter Pretzel Petit Gateau w/ peanut butter mousse & cookie made w/ pretzel flour
Clement: blueberry muffin → Blueberry Trompe L’oeil w/ muffin in the middle
Adalberto: Snoball → Double Cappuccino Namelaka w/ chocolate butter cookies
SKILLS CHALLENGE STATS: Chris 20; Juan 16; Molly 13; Adalberto 12; Florencia 11; Clement 11; Casey 8.
Master Challenge: Innovataing International Favorites to uniquely reflect “you”: randomly assigned, points awarded out of 30. Blind judging.
Chris: Tarte Tatin → Creme Fraiche Cake in Caramelized Puff Pastry w/ caramel mousse, caramelized apples, apples poached in cider and red wine, & apple gelee
Casey: Opera Cake → Macaron Wreath w/ Hazelnut Joconde Sponge, coffee buttercream, mini macarons, & chocolate ganache
I admit, the idea for this post was not really my own. My sister, who’s much smarter than I, idly mentioned to me a few months back that it had occurred to her that our modern culture’s obsession with “health” (i.e. diet, exercise, & weight management) is analogous to religion in medieval culture. That, for us nowadays, “health” and “fitness” are basically our substitute for God.
And I’ve been mulling over that for a while, and I think it’s really true. And, tbh, really messed up.
“But Mith,” you may be saying, “health is so important! It’s a great thing to care deeply about.”
Of course health is very important! But “health,” in the classic sense, does not mean the things that people today have been led to believe it means.
A person is physically healthy if they’re: basically eating a pretty balanced diet, they’re at a pretty normal weight, their body does what it’s supposed to do without issue, and they don’t have any serious illnesses or glaring physical problems or abnormalities. Things like: taking a walk to get some fresh air and aid digestion. Staying generally active to keep your strength up. That’s a pretty general picture of “health,” right, and a pretty good standard.
But these days, physical “health” means: thinness, intentional muscle building, macro- and micronutrients, weight lifting (with perfect form), striving for the ideal body shape, whole foods, protein maxxing, intermittent fasting, skinniness, creatine, pedometers, BMI, this that and the other ratio, gym memberships, thinness, personal trainers, expensive name-brand water bottles, expensive skincare products to reduce the appearance of aging, thinness, expensive all-natural organic locally-grown this that and the other, being skinny, looking “sexy” into your fifties and sixties and beyond, being skinny, being as thin as possible, and so on and so on and so on. All of this is pretty newfangled and trendy. And I don’t think it really has much to do with “health.”
Like, people online are seriously out here calling fashion model Ashley Graham “morbidly obese” and “unhealthy” — when she is not only insanely beautiful, but also an objectively average body size. (And I don’t mean “average for an American woman,” because in America our “average” is heavily skewed due to how many of us actually are obese; I mean average for a healthy human woman regardless of context.)
WTF. Where is this skewed, exaggerated definition of “health” coming from? And why are we so obsessed with it that we treat it like our religion?
It comes from companies who want our money. That’s what it comes down to.
Every time I see someone calling someone like Ashley Graham “morbidly obese,” I see someone who’s completely brainwashed, who’s fallen prey to the money-grabbing schemes of the corporations, the retailers, the advertisers, the content creators.
No shame. Most of us do fall for it, at some point, to some extent. I fell for it myself, as a kid, with disastrous consequences. As so many of us do.
It’s really only recently that I’m coming to this realization that this obsession with Health is just a modern-day paganism – it’s idol worship. It’s a hypnosis induced by another flashy advertisement for some product that neither I, nor anyone (except maybe high-level athletes, ballerinas, bodybuilders, etc.) actually needs. It’s really pathetic.
“But Mith, my body feels great when I lift weights and proteinmaxx and drink my weird little fitness smoothies and count macros and–” OK cool! great! You do you. But let’s stop telling everyone they need to do all of this, because all of this is not normal. And it’s not necessary.
Most people feel just fine eating a normal (i.e. not an Instagram influencer’s) diet, at a normal (i.e. not a runway model’s) size, exercising a normal (i.e. not what Big Gym tells you is “normal”) amount. Sure: maybe they’d have a bit more energy if they lifted weights and proteinmaxxed and etc., but would that boost really be significant enough to be worth the sacrifice of your precious free time, of making it a whole obsession, as if your life depends on it?
That’s not health. Health is about so much more than how skinny you are and how much weight you can lift.
All these greedy vendors trying to get our attention with alluring images of this extreme, exaggerated, unrealistic ideal of “Health” – it’s all a lie.
It’s like if they tried to tell us we’re not really “eating food” unless we’re eating Wagyu beef steaks and caviar every single day. “Don’t have these? You have nothing to eat! You’re literally starving!” Or if they tried to tell us we’re not really “driving a car” unless we’re in a Lamborghini. Or if they tried to tell us we don’t really “live in a house” unless that house is 5,000 square feet and outfitted with all the trendiest finishes and the latest energy-efficient amenities. “Anything less is simply not a house! You’re literally homeless!” See how absurd that is? This is how stupid you look when you call someone like Ashley Graham “unhealthy” because she has visible fat on her body instead of just pure rock-hard muscle and bone.
People make so much money off of telling us we’re not good enough and we should hate our bodies. Don’t even get me started on the anti-aging industry.
I know that for some of you this is old news – you’ve been trying to tell us for years! But it’s really only just sinking in for me now, now that I’m 36 and long past the age of any hope of sexual desirability by conventional standards. I begin to see it now: neither you nor I will ever be “healthy” nor “pretty” enough.
I’m realizing how true it is that, by these modern standards that we idolize, no one will ever be healthy enough – and anything perceived as “unhealthy,” any deviation from this strict standard, is cast as a moral failing!
It really is a religion, for so many people! The analogy is plain to see. How did we get like this?
This health cult is a societal disease in itself!
I’m no expert, but if I had to guess, I think this disease is the result of (1) our Godlessnes as a society — our lack of an actual, real religion, and (2) our fast-paced post-industrial world, in which everyone’s expected to chase dollars and sell things and appeal to the masses, and (3) the modern media: the internet and social media, of course, but before that there were magazines and TV and tabloids and all.
The most important of these factors is (1), because it’s our Godlessness that leads us to fall into the traps of (2) and (3).
And also, because living without any real religion leads us to have an inordinate fear of death.
We’re deeply horrified by the vulnerability of our bodies. We refuse to accept that they are dust and to dust they shall return, sooner rather than later. We’ll kick and scream and do whatever we can to try and wrestle against that truth, to lengthen this earthly life, because we believe it’s all we have and when this is done, it’s done: curtains, lights out, party’s over.
That’s not a healthy perception of life and death. Our bodies, even the ones that are celebrated as so “fit” and “sexy” and “healthy,” are vulnerable! We’re all susceptible to disease and death, and no amount of time spent in the gym, no step count nor perfect macros, can change that.
Case in point: I once worked with this girl, an absolutely lovely girl, really smart and funny and fun to hangout with, a hard worker and a really likeable social butterfly, who also happened to be ridiculously hot: petite and tiny, super “fit,” maybe ninety pounds soaking wet, she looked like an Instagram model, and indeed, she was a former competitive cheerleader, so her body looked about as close to “perfect” as can be, by today’s conventional standards. All the men in the workplace fawned over her. And of course a part of me envied her body.
— That is, until I got to know her a bit better, and learned that she was being treated for a persistent cancer: colorectal cancer, in fact, which gave her all kinds of gory symptoms and painful trips to the bathroom and sometimes gave her uncontrollable diarrhea (she often laughed with us coworkers about these incidents, including an anecdote about shitting herself in a grocery store once; I guess if you can’t laugh, all you can do is cry). She’d gone through chemo before, and was getting ready to do it again soon. And shortly after we fell out of touch, I learned through the grapevine that this cancer, and its treatments, had caused her to tragically lose a pregnancy late in the second trimester.
Needless to say I no longer envied her body. I just felt bad for her. I’d rather have my sturdy, unsexy, healthy body any day than her beautiful sick one!
See? If you saw her on the street, you’d look at this petite girl and go “wow! She’s so healthy!” But she was actually not healthy at all!
So what is this idea of health? It’s a false idol, is what it is, and we’re all fools, enslaved by it.
Sure, being overweight is generally bad. I’m not one of those “health at any size,” “body-positive” advocates. That’s silly. Being too big is bad for your health, and if you are obese, you need a lifestyle change. That’s a simple truth.
But let’s not conflate that with “anyone with any visible fat on their body is a failure and a loser and deserves to be scorned and shunned” – to be excommunicated, if you will, from this Church of Health and Fitness.
It’s idol worship. It’s futile, it’s pathetic, and if you’ve fallen for it, I’m sorry, and if you’re out there perpetuating it, I’m embarrassed for you.
Let’s do better. Let’s return to the one true religion — or at the very least, let’s open our eyes and climb up out of this Plato’s cave that we’re trapped in.
Because living like this, worshipping this ridiculous extreme, offering it the bloody sacrifice of our hard-earned money, our limited time, our very self-worth – it’s not good. It isn’t (wait for it!:) healthy.
TW: the movie I’m discussing in this post deals with some extremely uncomfortable topics, such as clerical sex abuse, other terrible things happening to children and animals, suicide/self-harm, marital infidelity, & etc.
.
Calvary (2014): while watching it, and for about a day afterwards, I firmly believed that it was the worst, most miserable, most pointless movie that I’d ever seen. I was, in fact, royally pissed that I’d given it an hour and forty-two minutes of my life, an hour and forty-two minutes that I’d never get back.
But upon reflection, I think it’s actually a really good movie.
Not an enjoyable one – I absolutely do not care to watch it again, and I can’t say I “recommend” it – but, a good and important one.
.
To be fair, the movie made it clear from the very first line what kind of movie it was going to be. It literally opens with a scene of a dude walking into the confessional and just immediately telling the priest: “I first tasted semen when I was seven years old.” – … oh. okay. This is gonna be that kind of movie. They make it abundantly clear right from the get-go. If you’re not mentally prepared to watch that kind of movie, which I was not, then this is where you realize what the movie’s about, and turn it off. I could have just turned it off.
Why didn’t I? Not for any noble reason. I kept watching because my husband had paid money, actual money, for us to watch it. We virtually never shell out for those rent-to-own movies, because why should we have to pay additional money when we’re already paying for the damn streaming service? But this time, my sweet husband was really eager to try and find a movie that I would love, because it’d been a while since we’d found a show or movie that really did it for me. He’d scoured the internet, grilled ChatGPT relentlessly, researching titles, narrowing down options, and finally found this one, Calvary, from 2014. It looked like something worth paying for.
Based on the descriptions, it ticked a ton of boxes for “things Mith loves in a movie”: slow-paced, character-driven, thought-provoking, human drama, beautiful Irish scenery, Catholic themes. It sounded so promising!
But then… it was just misery upon misery. Just senseless torture from start to finish. As if the creators challenged themselves: “how can we completely ruin the audience’s day?” “How can we take a normal, healthy viewer and turn her into a clinically depressed and anxious one?” “How can we paint as grim a portrait of human nature as humanly possible in an hour and forty-two minutes??”
Like there was one scene where the protagonist, the priest, was just sitting in a pub minding his own business, and some dude comes up to him and is like “hey, I heard this horrible thing one time…” and proceeds to relate the most disturbing anecdote I personally have ever heard; I won’t go into details here, because you don’t need that in your life today, but suffice it to say that it had to do with a three-year-old boy suffering intensely. (As the mother of a three-year-old boy, I lost a lot of sleep that night, and had to do some research into whether such a horrible thing were even medically possible; technically, it is, albeit extremely unlikely.) To which our protagonist, understandably enraged, just kind of pauses and stares, and then replies: “WHY WOULD YOU TELL ME THAT?!” and the dude just kinda grins and shrugs.
That is exactly how I felt watching this whole movie! The protagonist, in this moment, is me, the viewer. I was pissed! Because why?? “Why would you show me that?!”
It didn’t sink in until later that there actually is a reason why the filmmakers decided to inflict such suffering. An important reason. And it goes back, once again, to the very first line of the movie.
This is a movie about sexual abuse of children. – Think about it: why even watch a movie about such an unspeakably horrible thing? Isn’t a movie supposed to be entertaining?
I remember one time back in college, in one of my writing classes – journalism, maybe – a professor assigning us an article to read and analyze, about some horrible thing that had happened to someone: a house fire or something tragic, just a real downer, I can’t remember exactly. And after we read it, the professor asked us: “now, why did we even read this? Why read, or write about, something so horrible? Any ideas?”
No one raised their hand right away, so I slowly, shakily raised mine. (I loathe speaking in public, but absolutely love the thrill of answering a question correctly, so, it always put me in this weird tense emotional state, when I knew the answer to a teacher’s question.) “As an act of service to the victims,” I said, or something like that. “The same reason we read holocaust literature. To share in their suffering. It honors what those people went through.”
Professor was, I remember, very pleased with that answer. (I, as a 36-year-old mom, am still chasing the high of being praised by English teachers and writing professors.) We read/watch stories about victims of horrific suffering as an act of service to those victims – to share in their suffering. Because what else can we meaningfully do for them?
And so, what would a movie about sexual abuse of children even be, if it didn’t inflict senseless suffering upon the viewer? It would be an insult to the real-life victims.
To try and put a cheesy, happy “but everything’s really okay and all people are really well-intentioned on the inside and everyone’s a victim after all so let’s try and have compassion”-type of spin on this story, would be a huge injustice to those whose lives were destroyed.
And yeah, the movie did offer one tiny little slightly-redemptive thread, with the widowed woman on the airplane at the end, and the implied forgiveness in the very last scene where the daughter goes to visit her father’s murderer in prison. But still, it can hardly be said to be “uplifting” or “hopeful.” And that’s correct; it shouldn’t be.
.
The depictions of Catholicism bothered me, too. All the priests and even the bishop were made to look like disingenuous flakes who didn’t really believe in any of the actual teachings of the Catholic Church; there was no actual faith. What we saw was a picture of a Church that’s entirely lost sight of its purpose. It appears hopeless. The burning of the church at the end is actually a very apt metaphor.
Which upset me, of course. That is not the Church that I attend on Sundays! My parish priests are not like that. That is not the faith that I’m familiar with! – But, if we look at this through the lens of the suffering of the victims of clerical sex abuse, then yeah, of course this is accurate; this is the picture of the Church that we, as Catholics, have shown them, and by our actions and indifference have convinced them is true.
Which brings me to one of the most interesting moments, that upset me the most and in retrospect is one of the most powerful: before the guy shoots the priest, he denies killing the dog (apparently it was the bartender that did that, I missed the clues), and then he asks the priest “were you sad, when your dog was killed? Did you cry?” Yes, of course he did. “What about when you read in the newspapers about what your fellow priests had done to those kids? Did you cry then?”
…
No.
And then he kills him.
It’s just human nature though, isn’t it? The death of one is a tragedy, especially if it’s one of our own; the death (or suffering) of many, especially those we don’t personally know, just becomes a statistic, in our mind. Even if we are genuinely compassionate people and deeply disturbed or even horrified by the news, most of us aren’t likely to weep over it the way we would over the loss of a dear friend. That’s just normal. So our priest did not deserve to die.
But that’s the whole point, isn’t it. Christ didn’t deserve to die. A priest’s job is to live as Christ in the world. Christ willingly took on the punishment for our sins, and voluntarily went to his death, accepting that punishment.
Which is exactly what our protagonist does. He may not be an exemplary Catholic priest or represent the whole faith well, but he does certainly model Christ in this way. He was told that he was going to be killed for the sins of his brethren, and instead of resisting, he accepted. He saw all the sins and ugliness of mankind (that’s the whole plot of the movie: him seeing how ugly mankind is), and chose to die anyway. Christ died for us in spite of our ugliness, but in the case of our protagonist, I think seeing the depth of that ugliness actually made him all the more willing to die; like, it was so far gone, what else could he do?
“A spotless victim” – the dude in the beginning even says, “no point killing a bad priest, I need to kill a good one.” The unblemished lamb must be sacrificed.
An interesting premise, right? And there are all these other parallels to the Passion story: the characters Simon and Veronica, for one, and you could even argue that his daughter, whom he meets up with during the course of this week leading up to his death, is sort of a Mary figure. I didn’t notice all of these until after watching the movie, when I was lying there in bed pissed off and trying not to think about it but unable to think of anything else.
So, I think it accomplished what it set out to do. I think it’s actually a really good movie. Enjoyable? Hell no. Important and well done? Absolutely. Do I recommend it? Again, hell no.
But, also, maybe kind of yes, if you’re mentally prepared and think you can stomach it.
— Although, the children who were abused, did they get to be “mentally prepared”? Did they get to be “ready”? They didn’t get a “TW”, did they? – so, yeah, you know what, on that note, maybe I do recommend it. Maybe we should all watch it and suffer; it’s the least we can do, as fellow humans, isn’t it?
CAUTION: CONTAINS SPOILERS for Ultimate Baking Championship!!
Four weeks in, what do we think of the rotating guest judges, friends? Guest judge tonight was Bryan Ford, whom if you’re a baking show addict like me you may remember we saw as a judge on Sandra Lee’s Blue Ribbon Baking Championship a couple years ago – which, that was one of the best baking shows that’s come out recently! When are they going to do a second season? Bryan was an excellent judge on that show, and it was nice to see him back at it again. Since that show, he’s published a cookbook and he and his ridiculously-gorgeous wife have had a baby, hurray! I’m a fan of his.
Although personally, I do miss the familiar, regular panel of Duff, Nancy, and Kardea; but, I also kind of like seeing these illustrious guest judges come and go; it adds to the high-end, fast-paced feel of the show, and keeps things unpredictable.
Anyway, the highlights of tonight were Juan and Christopher being best bros, and Rochelle and Florencia being… the exact opposite.
Apparently, Juan and Christopher used to work together, so they’re already friends and really good teammates. The whole theme of their pastry display was the story of their friendship, which was so adorable I just about died, like, they even made a little chocolate clock with mini-croissants for the numbers and set it to three o’clock, because that was when Juan’s shift would begin on the days that they worked together in the restaurant, HOW CUTE IS THAT. 😭🥰 I just love friendship, I love seeing people who are friends – it’s just such a cool and fascinating thing when two people just like each other for who they are and enjoy each other’s company. To make things even cuter, they both scored exactly 38 points; #twinning.
Rochelle and Florencia, on the other hand… oof. As Adalberto observed while watching their judging, “this is torture. Torture.” It really was painful to watch them. And I’m sorry to say it, because I’m a fan of Rochelle, but it did kinda appear that Rochelle was the one being difficult to work with – the way she snapped at Florencia to “just worry about herself” when Florencia was trying to make sure their pastries would be approximately the same size. Ouch!
To her credit, Rochelle did apologize later. And I can certainly understand how she must have felt; it would suck, for me, if I were already in some high-stress, highly-demanding situation and then, to make matters worse, had to cooperate with a teammate on something creative, ugh. I’m not a good team player, and apparently Rochelle also prefers her independence. This challenge threw off her vibe; her sweet croissant came out “bready,” and her savory one tight, flat, and dense. Florencia did a bit better and managed to stay safe.
Meanwhile, “Girl Power” team Molly and Casey won the night – my girl Casey is now the only one with multiple victories! 🥳 She did a beautiful job, drawing inspiration from her Italian heritage; that raspberry cheesecake danish sounded dreamy.
And Clement was predictably amazing, being an expert of laminated dough – Duff said his looked like a machine had made it. It was kinda hilarious to me, though, that he made a hot dog croissant for his savory pastry, lol! All this talk about the Frenchman being so good at pastry because it’s so quintessentially French and French this and French that and how very French it all is — and then he decides to stick an all-American hot dog in it! I guess his idea was to show the blending of his native culture with his new life in America. In any case, he certainly made it work.
But I was disappointed that his teammate Adalberto didn’t do as well as he’d hoped. I keep wanting him to pull back into the lead! He was up there for a minute in a couple challenges in the first two episodes. Come on, Adalberto, we know you’ve got this!
And tbh I’m still over here reeling from the loss of Robert. It just feels wrong that he’s not on this show anymore. I almost want them to pull a Spring Baking Championship Season 8 and “resurrect” him (remember that? My husband and I still joke about how stupid that was, lol).
Vocab words I learned on tonight’s show: cacciatore, queso fundido, humita, duxelle-au-vent, flamiche, guajillo. It’s nice to still be surprised by a baking show, after all these years.
HERE’S THE RECAP:
Only One Challenge: Pastry Shop – Partners Challenge, teams randomly assigned: each team must create two dozen savory and two dozen sweet pastries with laminated dough, and a “pastry shop window” display to arrange them in. Flavors and theme must be cohesive. Points awarded out of 50.
Casey & Molly: European theme
Casey: savory Italian ham and cheese croissant; sweet raspberry cheesecake danish
It’s been a minute since I did one of these! If you’re a regular here, you may remember Season One and Season Two (and/or the Infinite Jest spinoff). Now that time has passed and I’ve watched a few more TV shows, it’s time for Season Three.
Presenting our competitors:
12. Aaron Corval from Run Away. Unfortunately, Aaron does not remain on the show, but suddenly, mysteriously disappears from the set halfway through the second challenge, leaving his station a mess the likes of which has never before been seen on this show; how did he even do that? He also somehow managed to steal an expensive stand mixer and quite a few bottles of imported vanilla beans. Automatic disqualification– although, he probably wouldn’t have made it very far had he remained, as his first cake was a sloppy disaster, like he didn’t even follow a recipe.
11. JJ Maybank from Outer Banks. Although he’s a fan favorite, a good team player, and gets along swimmingly with Chance, who’s his same age, and although the whole South was cheering for him when he represented with flavors like banana pudding, peach-bourbon, and sweet potato, JJ predictably lacks the finesse and the elegance to really last in a competition like this.
10. Karen Calhoun from The Watcher. After winning the first challenge this week on sheer luck, as an advantage Karen got to assign the flavors for the second challenge. She thought she was setting herself up for victory by selecting champagne (a flavor she knows quite well), but as anyone who watches these shows will know, champagne is a tough flavor to work with. Barely a ghost of a taste of champagne, in that beautiful cake. You could even say this decision came back to haunt her. She’ll miss hanging around Nile Jarvis, whose attention she was embarrassingly desperate for this whole time.
9. Danny Cho from Beef. The judges appreciated his bold, Asian-inspired flavor choices, but cameras caught him sabotaging the other contestant’s desserts as they chilled in the deep freezer. Danny denies it fervently, but it seems like his rhythm is thrown off after that, and in the second challenge he managed to burn his cake to an inedible crisp.
8. Chance from Castle Rock. Chance isn’t even sure how she got here. She doesn’t really do a lot of baking (not the domestic type), and her bakes are all very low-effort, but, all these other contestants somehow got kicked off before she did. She had fun partying with JJ but ever since his elimination she’s just been waiting to get sent home, and honestly seems annoyed that it’s taken this long.
7. Josephine “Carrie” Murphy from All Her Fault. Josie could have won the whole thing. Her synesthesia makes her bakes really interesting conceptually, and her flavor combinations are always thoughtful and unexpected, like when challenged to create a three-tier cake, she made an ethereal kiwi-lime masterpiece filled with cucumber-mint mousse, because the number three is green; and when asked to create a lattice-topped pie, she filled it with caramelized banana and honeyed pecans because the word “lattice” tastes like breakfast cereal. She’s very driven, too, and a fierce competitor, but unfortunately, when the bottom three were her, Nile, and Cal, somehow the rich guys came out on top. It’s always like that, isn’t it.
6. Nile Jarvis from The Beast In Me. A natural predator, he doesn’t even need the prize money but is simply in this competition because he wants to be the best. The judges and the viewers at home all fall for his charming personality, but alas, when he gets into a pinch towards the end of tonight’s second challenge, he loses his temper and ends up smashing his whole red velvet cake to a gory mess with a rolling pin, leaving it in a heap on his station and then pathetically trying to blame it on Misty, who just shrugs him off, unfazed. There’s really no coming back from that.
5. Cal Bradford from Paradise. How could you not cheer for him? The quintessential Golden Retriever. Everyone loves his classic, rich, all-American flavors — chocolate chip cookie, apple pie, buttered popcorn — simple and clumsy as they may be at times. He’s also a great team player, and really shines in the team challenges. Tragically, his self-sacrificial nature is also his downfall, and he finally got eliminated because he spent the last thirty minutes helping Manousos and Sadie finish their pastries instead of working on his own.
4. Barry from Barry. With his eye for precision and his unshakable stoicism in high-stress situations, he’s actually a really good baker. He especially shines in highly technical challenges where other contestants get overwhelmed. But he’s not great at decorating, and the judges have consistently found his desserts just a little…well, boring. Viewers are glad to see him go; people online all agree that there’s something creepy about him.
And now, our three finalists:
3. Sadie Dunhill from 11/22/63. She’s a phenomenal baker with a retro flair that the judges love; she bakes a mean pound cake, and is a master of gelatin. She’s probably actually the best baker here, and tbh should have won, if it were only about baking skills, which, come on, we all know that’s not the only thing being judged, on these shows.
2. Misty Quigley from Yellowjackets. Misty is not only an extremely good baker, but also ruthless and insane, which works to her advantage in a competition like this. She may or may not have cheated several times to get here — tampering with Chance’s ingredients one, cranking up the temperature on Josie’s oven, et cetera — but no one can quite prove it. Her fellow competitors all hate her, at this point, and I think the judges are kind of afraid of her. Misty seems virtually undefeatable, but even she, with all her cunning powers and unscrupulous ways, comes in second to:
1. Manousos Oviedo from Pluribus, our grand champion! This guy just cannot be stopped. Coming from such a humble background, his determination to defeat the powers that be in this Baking Championship has been unrivalled. No technical difficulty, no stroke of bad luck, no malicious meddling from a competitor, has been enough to slow him down. Not only that, but the judges have loved his use of Paraguayan flavors, such as dulce de leche, papaya, and creamy custards. What is he going to do with the prize money?: go sit alone in his house and not talk to anyone ever again.
.
Was it fair? Did the best man win? Which tv characters should compete next?
was not any of the animals, but: the unsolicited kindness of other women: the solo one who, while walking the opposite direction, saw my three-year-old trip and fall, and stopped to make sure he was okay before proceeding on; the field trip chaperone who, in the cramped and stuffy indoor desert exhibit, noticed me trying to get through with a stroller and barked at her pack of unruly adolescent boys (who either didn’t see me or didn’t care) to move over, there’s a baby right there, and allowed me to pass; the older one in the ladies’ room who saw me trying to manage my four- and six-year-olds while also trying to change baby’s diaper, and asked me if there were anything I needed; the college lacrosse player in line for the restroom at sheetz, where we stopped on the way home, who noticed me holding my three-year-old and was the only one of her large group of teammates who allowed me to cut in front of her in line; and all the other moms pushing strollers and holding tiny hands who smiled at me in quiet acknowledgement as we crossed paths: I see all of you, God sees all of you, & I hope that He rewards you greatly. Because women who, for no reason at all other than plain & simple kindness, go out of their way to help other women as we try to navigate this hectic world: you really are, imo, some of His best ideas.
CAUTION: CONTAINS SPOILERS for Ultimate Baking Championship!!
“Go do the Boston skyline and mind your own business, okay?” – Robert to Juan, when Juan was casually checking in on the other team’s progress
What an intense week! They claim that these themes are “randomly assigned,” but is it just me, or did tonight really seem like the creators had deliberately assigned certain desserts to certain contestants in order to maximize the drama.
Like, in the Boston Cream Pie group: Christopher is literally from Boston, so this is personal for him and he has a lot of experience with it — but!, Juan’s boyfriend is also from Boston, and Juan makes him this cake all the time, and the couple even visited the famous hotel together recently – so, it’s a very personal dessert for him, too. Meanwhile, Adalberto made it personal by incorporating Cuban dark rum and a fierce determination to come back from his lackluster performance in the last two episodes.
And in the Coconut Cream Pie group: Florencia had literally never made a single pie before in her life! Not a one! Excuse me but what the helly? Why would you sign up to go on this huge American competition show and not even practice making an American pie crust once or twice before walking onto the set, lol? (I mean clearly she didn’t need to, though – she still made an amazing pie and nailed the textures!) Clement, also, is not a pie-maker; he’s French, and shamelessly asserted that the French do tarts instead, which are basically the same “but better.” And, since pie is unfamiliar to him, he seemed to actually be struggling to get his pie crust to work – it wasn’t looking good for him, for a few minutes there. Meanwhile, their competitor, Robert, has made zillions of pies, and not only that but hails from Miami and has grown up with coconut-flavored desserts — so he really seemed to have the edge here.
And then, the Italian Rum Cake group: Casey, who comes from an Italian family and is very familiar with this dessert, was up against the adventurous Rochelle (and her chaotic evil alter-ego Shelly) and high-scoring Molly with her sleek modern design. Would Casey’s classic cake be too classic and old-school, or would her familiarity be an advantage?
I wasn’t too surprised with the results of the Italian Rum Cake contest; I was glad to see Casey win; she’s one of my favorites. Although, part of me also wants Rochelle to win the whole thing, because she’s geographically the closest to me so I feel kind of a natural affinity. However, when they were showing Rochelle assembling her layers, and she was commented on how the pastry cream may look loose now, but “relax, it’ll set up” – I had a feeling that one was going to come back to bite her.
I did take some issue with the results of the Boston Cream Pie contest, though. Why did they do that to Adalberto?! I don’t understand! He didn’t get any negative critiques (not that we got to see, anyway). Juan, on the other hand, was told that his cake actually had too much vanilla flavor (which, how the heck does something taste “too much” of vanilla? Is that even possible? Have you ever eaten something that tasted too strongly of vanilla?? That’s like water tasting too watery, or air smelling too airy), and also his marble cracked, and the judges seemed less than pleased with him. I really, 100% thought that, based on that, Juan was going to be in the bottom of his group! What happened here! And poor Adalberto – just as he was celebrating “I’m back, baby”, then he gets told he’s in the bottom three again? Not cool. At least he made it through, but still: not cool.
However, it was cool to see Christopher win, being a native Bostonian and kind of an underdog up against Juan and all.
But the wildest thing of all was the fate of the Coconut Cream Pies! First of all, it looked like Clement was not even going to make it through – it looked for a minute like he might not even have a pie to present – but then, he managed to whip out something flawless and beautiful, with a delicious crust, and place first in his group! What sorcery is this?!
And second of all, Robert! ROBERT! What happened, my guy!! You were supposed to be a shoe-in! You were one of the top three in this whole contest, alongside Clement and Juan! I literally gasped. I’m shook. This was just so unexpected. I mean, yeah, his crust was too thick and he didn’t have enough filling, so it was fair, but, dang! How could this happen? Are you as flabbergasted as I am? I need someone to talk to about this, lol I’m gonna go drink some water and lie down, but leave me your comments!
THE RECAP:
Only One Challenge: Pastry Cream Classics – themes randomly assigned; groups of three competing against each other – the losers from each group up for elimination, with the lowest-scoring one of those three going home
Italian Rum Cake
Rochelle: festive cake with blown sugar cherry in a “splash” of molded chocolate
Molly: tall, modernized cake with cherry jam truffles on top
Adalberto: cake coated in chocolate rum ganache and gold Italienesque modeling chocolate décor, made w/ Cuban dark rum
Juan: toasted “gold” almonds on the sides and chocolate marble “floor” décor on op
Christopher: almond praline on bottom, chocolate mayflowers on top
SCORES & STATS:
Italian Rum: Casey (46), Molly (41), Rochelle (36)
Coconut Cream: Clement (44), Florencia (39), Robert (29)
Boston Cream: Christopher (45), Juan (43), Adalberto (41)
Winner: Casey
Sent Home: Robert
A dessert is called “sexy”: 0 times (running total: 3)
Superlatives from the judges: 1 “the fanciest Boston Cream Pie” Duff’s ever seen (running total 1)
Dead family members mentioned: 0 (running total 1)
Duff’s gaping maw spotted: 4 times (running total 8)
The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Clement’s coconut cream pie topped with those little coconut macaroons hidden inside chocolate coconuts!
…or is it objective?, and if so, is something wrong with me if I’m not attracted to what’s objectively attractive?
Here we go again, another reaction to an IG reel! What did Mith see on Instagram and get pissed off about today?! I should really just quit that Godforsaken app. — but then where would I get my inspiration for all these blustering blog posts?
With it being Lent, I haven’t actually been on Instagram much lately, but on Sundays we don’t fast, so yesterday I had the opportunity to indulge in some mindless scrolling. And while doing so, I stumbled upon the offending post, the subject of this little essay.
Tl;dr: OP was comparing the attractiveness of actors Henry Cavill and Timothee Chalamet, and trying to use them to make a point: that hormonal birth control, which is so ubiquitous among women these days, is affecting our perception of what is “attractive.” The OP pointed out that if a woman finds Chalamet more attractive than Cavill, her body is clearly not functioning the way it naturally should. Cavill is much more masculine, thus, the OP hypothesizes that if a woman finds Chalamet (who’s more delicate and “pretty” or even, some say, “reptilian” in his good looks) more attractive than Cavill, it’s because she is on BC which is messing her up and she probably “hasn’t ovulated in a decade.” Moral of the story: birth control is evil, and Timothee Chalamet is not hot.
OP is right: birth control is evil. One of the worst societal evils of our time, even. And it is doing bad things to women’s bodies and tampering with their sexuality. And, I agree: Timothee Chalamet, while incredibly beautiful, isn’t that “hot” — to me, at least. Regardless of how Mith feels, though, it is true that Cavill better exemplifies traditionally masculine qualities, so I get where OP is coming from.
So if I’m in full agreement with OP, why am I pissed off?
Because of the implication that failure to be attracted to someone like Henry Cavill means a woman is “broken.” OP is wrong; OP has identified a couple true things, but drawn an illogical, nonexistent connection between the two truths.
Keep in mind that I am no psychologist nor sociologist nor any other -ologist. But, I think it’s clear that “sexually attractive” is a highly subjective descriptor. Sure we can make some generalizations, like: most straight women like Henry Cavill and most straight men like Sydney Sweeney. But really, there’s a lot more to it, physiologically, than just “if you’re a healthy, functioning straight woman, you should like Henry Cavill.”
Don’t tell me who I should and should not find attractive.
Speaking as a straight woman who hasn’t been on hormonal birth control in fifteen years, and who’s had four babies in the last seven years, all conceived naturally, I can assure you that my reproductive system is working exactly the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, I don’t find either Timothee Chalamet or Henry Cavill that attractive.
Sure, I can see how they are both very aesthetically-pleasing and well-formed male specimens. I guess if I were single and had to pick one of them (which, me being a dumpy, lumpy, poorly-dressed, 2.5-3/10 white trash matron with cankles, it’s pretty hilarious to even imagine such a scenario, lmao) I’d go with Cavill, but, he wouldn’t be my top choice of celebrity; I can easily name like six to eight male celebrities more “attractive” than him. But so what? That means nothing to anyone but me. Sexual attractiveness is such a completely subjective matter.
People have all kinds of weird little preferences and peculiar tastes, in this area. Some things may be more popular, but that doesn’t mean someone’s broken for not liking popular things. If someone doesn’t like the taste of chocolate or pizza, would you tell them their mouth is broken? — well, you might, I guess, if you were trying to be funny, but you know you’d be wrong.
Now, some opinions are wrong. Some people have sexual preferences that are objectively bad, like pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Something is indeed very, very wrong with those people. Continuing with the food analogy, we might compare them to someone who’s afflicted with pica, the insatiable urge to eat non-food items.
But when we’re comparing the attractiveness of two healthy adults: it’s basically a case of apples and oranges. Some people prefer one or the other.
“But Mith,” you might be arguing, “You said ‘healthy adults.’ That’s the thing. Cavill looks healthy but Chalamet does not! Cavill appears hardy and hale, while Chalamet looks like a strong wind would blow him over. And it’s natural to desire a partner who’s in good health.”
Both true. Which is why most straight women will prefer Henry Cavill (I’m not sure where OP even came up with the claim that “most” women these days prefer Timothee Chalamet; I think it was just ragebait, because people are still pissed at Chalamet for his recent ballet comment). But like I was saying: within the parameters of moral acceptability, there’s no such thing as “correct” or “incorrect” opinion of sexual attractiveness.
“Oh sure, you’re allowed to like what you want, no one’s saying you can’t; but still: being attracted to someone who appears unhealthy, makes no sense from a biological standpoint. If you’re attracted to someone unhealthy-looking, something is probably wrong with you biologically.”
You’re not wrong that it makes no sense, from a strictly biological standpoint, to be attracted to someone who appears “unhealthy.” But does it follow that something’s wrong with you if you’re attracted to someone who appears “unhealthy”?
No! It does not! Because we are humans.
I think OP forgot to consider that a human being’s sense of sexual attractiveness is not just biological.
Humans are not like other animals. Hence, an individual human’s concept of “sexually attractive” is not simply a biological impulse (clearly; otherwise gay people would not exist), but is heavily influenced by both cultural norms and their emotional/psychological state.
Look at Venus of Willendorf. Back in old times, men liked heftier women because it was a sign of health and wealth: she could afford to eat well, and would survive the winter, bear many children, and etc.
Even among present-day cultures, there are variations. Compare mainstream white pop culture to hip-hop and rap culture. The former values the lithe and rail-thin look, for women; the latter seems to celebrate “thick” and “juicy” female bodies. Different cultures. I used to follow this aspiring rapper who was a white girl, naturally skinny as a pixie, like, most white girls’ dream body — but because she wanted to make it in the rap world, she intentionally gained weight and even (rumor has it) underwent surgery to make herself “thick.” Kind of blew my mind, as someone who envied her “before” body.
My mind is as warped as anyone else’s. I’ll admit that.
Here’s something most people in 2026 (myself included!) don’t want to acknowledge: for women, it’s actually healthier to be slightly overweight than slightly underweight! Ask your doctor if you don’t believe me. So if we’re gonna talk about sexual attraction being “strictly biological,” we need to ask why people think Victoria’s Secret models are the picture of “health.” True, a small percentage of women are naturally that thin (different body types do exist, and different people have different “resting weights”), and that’s fine; but in reality, for most women, “healthy” actually looks like approximately 20-50 pounds heavier than your average Victoria’s Secret model. Most women, when they attain the weight of a Victoria’s Secret model, will actually stop ovulating altogether, and become sick — so tell me how that size is “healthier” and “biologically ideal for reproduction”? A slightly-heavier woman is more likely to survive harsh conditions, to bear children, to not break any bones.
I think it’s plain to see that our perception of über-thin women as sexually desirable, results from a few different factors, none of which are “natural” or “biological.”
Let’s be honest. Men like skinny women because they are easier to physically control and push around — because it makes them (the men) feel stronger. It makes it easier for them. If you want to be the kind of man who can pick up his wife and carry her around, it’s easier to seek out a paper-thin woman than to get stronger yourself so you can carry a heavier one. So, it’s physiological; it’s the man’s emotional/psychological state, desiring to feel big and powerful and dangerous, so when he sees a skinny woman it excites him in a self-centered, “I’m a big tough man” kind of way.
Men (and women) also like skinny women because — modern-day Venus of Willendorf situation — it signals wealth. See a skinny woman: she can afford healthy food and leisure time to work out! It is natural, in a way, but distorted: humans want to go where we think there is abundance, we want to associate with winners. And in 2026, that’s how we have been programmed to perceive skinniness.
So there’s definitely an emotional and psychological aspect to our perception of “sexually attractive.” Isn’t it obvious? If sexual attraction were strictly biological and objective, then uggos like me would never get married!
So if a woman, for whatever reason, prefers a Timothee Chalamet to a Henry Cavill, is something “wrong” with her? No. I don’t think we can say that. Perhaps her sex drive is further removed from that of a soulless primate. Perhaps she’s more cerebral. Perhaps she has some kind of unconscious emotional baggage. Maybe Timothee’s face reminds her of something that makes her happy. People, and their motives, are complicated. But as long as she’s not desiring something immoral, then why is that “wrong”?
Sex and sexual attraction are not just physical, in humans. We’re not dogs.
I dunno about you all, but for me, if I can’t picture an emotional connection with someone when I look at them — some kind of emotional depth — I can’t get into them physically, no matter how beautiful they are. A clean, flawless, perfectly-symmetrical, textbook example of a “Hot Guy” is so uninteresting to me. (I’m not attracted to women, but I feel the same way about women: the really stunning ones, imo, are not the angel-faced beauties, but the ones who look a bit unexpected or imperfect or real.) I need a person to look a little real, like someone I, with all my weirdnesses, could relate to, on a “heart” level, in order for me to find them attractive. Maybe that makes me some variant of “demisexual” and I’m “queer” now and need a pride flag — I don’t subscribe to all of that, though. We’re all gross and messed-up humans; no need to slap a label on all our little sexual foibles and make them into an identity. I’m only mentioning myself to demonstrate that people’s preferences can be vastly different depending on their personality and disposition.
But I guess some people out there really are just moved by biology and nothing more. That’s cool. Those people are valid too. But let’s not accuse those of us who yearn for depth and psychological engagement of being “broken.”
“Breaking news! Local straight conservative woman butthurt about being told who she ‘should’ and ‘should not’ find attractive! — Hypocritical much?” Lol, I see what you did there, & that’s pretty funny; but like I was saying above: there’s nothing moral about finding Adult A more attractive than Adult B. “Should” is a word that carries moral weight. And thus we can’t say that someone should prefer to eat chocolate instead of vanilla. Because that’s not a moral issue. We can, however, say that they should not prefer to eat human flesh. Or asphalt. Or anything else that isn’t food. But as long as we’re within the parameters of moral acceptability, you really can’t tell someone what they should and should not find attractive. So, not hypocritical actually. But if you have any other, better arguments, feel free to leave a comment.
I actually have personal beef with this question; I hate it, and it will never not make me cringe. Because (story time!) way back in tenth grade, my World History teacher made us answer this question for some accursed “getting to know each other” game on the first day of class (an introvert’s nightmare). And, trying to make sure everyone knew that I was edgy and dangerous and troubled and mysterious, do you know what my dumb ass wrote down for an answer?
“Problematic.” 🤦♀️
Not entirely untrue, lol, but, come on. As you can imagine, people just kind of frowned and scratched their heads and gave me a wide berth. Best believe that incident set the tone for my sophomore year of high school. Ugh, the cringe is painful.
But whatever. Honestly, that whole class was lame anyway. I’m pretty sure that the teacher, a very charming and youthful twentysomething ESE (my conflictor type, me being an ILI) was just there because he wanted to party with the cool and popular high schoolers; so, he wasn’t a big fan of mine. My only fond memory of that class was when my BFF and I collaborated on a presentation about the emporer Nero, recording a sock-puppet show full of our goofy ironic humor and random gags that left the whole class (and teacher) once again frowning and scratching their heads like wtf is wrong with those two, while we sat there crying with laughter. See, this time it was funny, because someone else was being weird with me.
But, I digress.
One word that describes me, now that I’m 36… it depends who’s asking. If you’re someone that I don’t know too well and want to stay on safe/neutral grounds with, I’d probably just smile and mumble some sheepish, guarded response like: “introspective,” “overthinking,” “boring,” or something like that — all of which are true of me but don’t really get to the heart of the truth.
But since it’s WordPress’s Daily Prompt that’s asking, and since this blog is my little space to be really honest with you, since I don’t know who you are — you could be anyone — and since probably no one will read this anyway, so what does it matter; I’ll try to give an answer that gets to the heart of the truth.
My best answer today: conflicted.
I feel like “conflicted” sums it up, what I essentially am and what it’s like to be me. And basically sums up what this blog is about. It’s the but in between two clauses, creating the tension that I live in. Like: I’m a homeschooling Traditional Catholic SAHM who wants to fit in with the other TradCath mommies, who are all so feminine and classy and well-mannered, but I’m also a tomboy with AVPD and a weird sense of humor and a fine arts degree. I’m married and love being a wife but, also, ain’t no freakin’ wifey. I want to be a writer, but my ideas are shit and I’m pretty sure no one will like them and am too afraid to try and find out. I am proud of my body for having four perfect children, but I also hate it because it’s a hideous meat-tank and I wish I could trade it in for a different model. I’m all for body positivity and fat women being free to be themselves, but I also believe the body positivity movement is sick and wrong and needs to be undone. I’m a closeted alt kid who loves blue hair and weird fashion but I also believe that modesty and conformity to societal norms are important, and I ain’t no woke liberal. I want to love and serve God but I’m still so entrenched in sin. I’m vegetarian/vegan but I also understand carnivores and why they do what they do. I love hip-hop & rap but I also believe that popular hip-hop culture is unhealthy and steeped in sin and we shouldn’t listen to it. I’m a conservative, but I kinda relate more to liberals most of the time. I’m this but I’m also that, and it creates conflict.
I can see things from both sides. Which way to be? Which side to lean towards, or, how to find a happy medium? About most things (not all things; the few things that I’m sure of, like Catholicism, provide an anchor, without which I’d surely just float off into the ether and never return), I’m conflicted.
And that’s why this blog exists, really. If any of this resonates with you, we should be friends. Like I was saying, it’s so much more fun being weird with someone else.
These days, in between weekly episodes of Paradise and Ultimate Baking Championship, there’s really not much on TV.
It makes me long for something, anything, that’s even half as good as my favorite show of all time, a show that I wish I could remove the memory of having watched from my brain in order to experience it again for the first time.
Succession is, imo, the single greatest TV show ever. (Greatest scripted series, that is; obviously — baking competition shows are my special favorite; but among serial dramas, nothing beats Succession.)
I’m a really stupid person, as you know, and this show is actually way over my head — my appreciation of it is like that of a dirty little illiterate street urchin pressing his chapped little ear against the door of a grand lecture hall, gaping and wondering at the eloquence and brilliance of what he hears from within — so I honestly feel ambivalent even trying to say anything about it; I worry that some ~Smart~ fan out there who really ~Understands~ the show, will read this and laugh at me. But I love it so much that I will attempt to say something nonetheless:
Because really: how often do you find a show that doesn’t jump the shark after one or two seasons? Not a second of filler, in all four seasons; not a single moment where the writing feels lazy or the energy dips.
“What’s so great about it,” some ask, in response to all the critical acclaim. If I, being the dimwit that I am, had to take a guess, I’d say that it comes down to two things: the characters, and the subtlety of the delivery.
The characters are, for the most part, despicable. Just awful individuals. They are “not serious people.” But, they aren’t just boring two-dimensional villains. They are a believable kind of despicable. There are depths, layers, complexities. They are as rich figuratively as they are literally. They are vivid and pathetic and human and fascinating; you kind of start to adore them.
Some have said that they couldn’t get into the show because they don’t find the characters likeable enough. I agree that I would hardly want to hang out with these characters irl – but as characters, viewed through a TV screen, I love them; for me, there’s a huge difference there.
For me it’s the subtlety. The writers used such a light hand, such a masterfully soft touch, in telling us about these characters; it’s really elegant. One of the best examples I can think of off the top of my head is the way Kendall’s infertility is implied, but never explicitly addressed, all the way up until the end of the last season. Even though it’s a huge, defining element of his character and the whole plot of the show.
It’s been a few years since I watched it, but there are still quite a few moments that live rent-free in my head. Here are the top ten:
13. Siobhan being disparagingly referred to by some business bigshot at a conference as “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” because she was pregnant. (S4 E9) Dismissing her. Like, she can’t possibly be taken seriously in this world because she’s just a little ol’ mom now. Similarly, the way Shiv told her own mom “it’s not like I’m gonna see it,” (referring to her child); “we’re gonna do it the family way.” The attitudes about parenting in this world are so twisted.
12. The three sibs at their mom’s house late at night eating the forbidden cheese and goofing off in her kitchen. (S4 E10) They weren’t supposed to be eating the cheese because it was the mom’s new boyfriend’s special cheese. (Not from this scene, but “New Dad just dropped” is one of my favorite Roman quotes of the whole show.) It was at once hilarious and sweet/poignant, to see these three ridiculous unserious and arguably evil people just having a silly funny time like normal siblings. A little reminder of their humanity.
11. Kendall: ah, Kendall, poor, disgusting, pitiable, wretched Kendall. So many moments of Kendall being Kendall:
11a. Absolutely flabbergasted and pearl-clutching because he asked poor little Cousin Greg to bring him some cocaine, and Greg brought “park coke,” i.e. procured it from some rando in the park at night, as if Kendall Roy were some kind of peasant drug addict, lmao, y’all know this is like my favorite moment of the whole show, I quote it all the time.
11b. The infamous Logan Rap. “L to the O-G”, ugghh!, I’m dying just thinking about it.
11c. Indirectly killing the bunny rabbit by ordering the housekeeper to “just give it some bagel.”
11d. Casually shitting the bed while passed out and wasted at that one party, and waking up and just hiding it inside the sheets and going on with his day.
11e. Once again flabbergasted, unable to comprehend that money can’t get him somewhere in the helicopter in season one, because the skies were closed i.e. air traffic was literally prohibited and the pilot wasn’t about to break the law for him.
10. Shiv’s little speech at her own wedding reception. (S1 E9) The jokey way she calls her new husband by his last name — people say she’s “emotionally avoidant,” but I think it’s pretty clear that she just isn’t that into him, and just thinks of him as a tolerable accessory that she can use to her advantage, who won’t compete with her nor interfere with her business ambitions. It’s pretty sad. This moment really encapsulated their whole dynamic, for me.
9. Speaking of Tom, the way that one lady, Cyd, in S2 E4, called him out for his “hundred dollar haircut” as if that were such an insult, lol (and speaking of insulting Tom, there was also the scene where the three sibs are not-so-playfully picking on him, and Shiv, his own wife, points out that he has an “agricultural walk”, lol what was even that?!)
8. And speaking of Tom + Shiv, their final scene (S4 E10) in the back of the car as they’re riding off after it’s been announced that Tom, humble Tom with his $100 haircut and agricultural walk, is going to inherit the company… and now Shiv is just his pregnant wife who works for him… the silence between them as they’re both looking in opposite directions was 🤌.
7. Connor’s Wedding (S4 E3). Just the way the episode is named “Connor’s Wedding,” but it ends up being about Logan’s death. The way Connor’s whole life and identity and psyche are so overshadowed, and so completely messed up, by his father. He can’t even have his wedding day. For me that was even sadder than Logan’s death, since we’ve known that was coming since Season One (the show is literally called “succession”). Connor is undoubtedly most tragic character in the whole show and I think about him frequently.
6. President picking party (S3 E6). This one lives rent-free in my head because I’d known, in theory, that it’s the ultra-wealthy who wield the power in this country, but somehow, seeing it played out in this episode (which, who knows how realistic that was, anyway), ngl, it kinda affected my feelings about how the US government actually works; I’ve been just a bit more cynical, since this episode.
5. Lukas Mattson’s revelation that he hasn’t bought a mattress for his big fancy house yet, because he has all the money in the world so could afford the very best on the planet, but keeps researching what the best one is and can’t make up his mind; he’s overly analytical and slightly insane and has contracted choice paralysis. (S4 E2) I also am prone to choice paralysis sometimes, but dang. What a nutjob. I think about this one all the time, I’ll just be shopping for groceries and I randomly think about Mattson’s mattress.
4. The opening credits. I always looked forward to it, and never wanted to skip it. Best intro in the history of TV. It’s not just the song, which fits the vibe of the show to a T; it’s the imagery as well. It actually adds something to the show that we don’t get anywhere else: a bit of backstory. Elsewhere in the story it’s alluded to, but in this intro, we get to actually see it. But again, as always, impeccably subtle. How often do a show’s opening credits actually add something of substance to the story?
3. The house where Logan grew up. (S2 E8) There was so much build-up to their visiting this place; for the three siblings, it’s legendary, a part of their family lore, and they talk about it as if it were a slum, a barely-habitable shack with an outhouse in the backyard, just unfathomably uncivilized, like it was so unbelievable that their noble, respectable father had come from such a place… and when you get there, it’s just… an ordinary suburban house. 😂
2. Logan eating fast food cheeseburgers alone (S1 E6, and I think a couple other times throughout the show as well). His love of fast-food cheeseburgers is one of the most telling things about his character imo. He’s really just a regular guy who busted his butt and worked hard and did some unethical stuff to build this empire – so unlike his children, who never knew anything other than extreme wealth and would find the concept of eating poor people food unthinkable. Logan says that everything he did in life, he did for his kids, and I believe he really meant that – but I think we see him also experiencing some kind of regret (to the extent that he is capable of experiencing that emotion) for the way that they’ve turned out. As a young man, he wanted a better life for his kids, and would go to any lengths to achieve that – but now, at the end of his life, look at where that’s gotten them. The way I see it, that’s kind of a hub for the whole plot.
And finally, the one moment that I think about the most:
1. The server in the kitchen at Nan Pierce’s house when the Roys are over there for dinner (S2 E5). There’s a brief moment when everyone at the table is gushing praises for the entree, and Nan is standing there thanking them with fake humility as if she’d prepared it herself. And just for a second, you see a hired woman, the one who actually did prepare the food, peeking in through the doorway with a peculiar expression. That one little fraction of a second told a whole story. It’s things like that that make this show so remarkable.
CAUTION: CONTAINS SPOILERS for Ultimate Baking Championship!!
“You can’t even stop Duff. Nine cake and he’s still at it.” – Amaury, watching Duff merrily chowing down during the judging of Oralia’s entremets
“He’s absolutely right, but, that’s the blue I gave him.” – Adalberto, with resignation, after hearing that the dark blue exterior of his dessert was unappetizing and off-putting
“I would like to not be the next one.” – Chris, immediately before getting called to go next after Florencia’s flawless reception in the second challenge
Week two. As tonight’s episode was starting, my husband observed: they’re eliminating contestants so fast, “tonight might be the finale!” Lol. Thankfully, it wasn’t.
Here we go! Caviar and calamansi, deconstructed this and modernized that. 🥱 I’ll take Molly’s simple, classic little red velvet cake, which received such negative criticism, over most of these bougie little frou-frou dishes, any day of the week! No offense to any of the chefs, of course – these people are all incredible to watch, truly next-level geniuses – but, I’m a simple person with simple tastes, and I’m still miffed that they took away my good old Spring Baking Championship this year. (Speaking of, that’s where I recognize Robert from!)
So, they have a clean slate each week? The leaderboard gets erased and starts over from scratch. What do we think about this, friends? I have mixed feelings. I kind of like it, but also, I think it’d be neat to do just one season where the scores were cumulative, building on progress from all of the prior challenges. In a way, that’d seem more fair, wouldn’t it? Everyone has bad luck at some point, and it seems like that shouldn’t be someone’s downfall if it’s a random one-off, and if they’ve been consistently really good.
However, I am happy that this format is giving Adalberto a fresh start… again. Yup, I hate to say it, because it probably means next week will be his last, but: he’s kinda become my favorite. I just really felt for him, when he was despondent after his disastrous second challenge, and was saying that, as an older contestant, he doesn’t have the time, like some of these younger contestants, to get better; this is it, for him. The end of the line. Adalberto! Come on! This is supposed to be my escapism! Baking Championship starting to get a little eschatological up in here. A little too real. I adore Adalberto, and I’m glad he pulled through by the skin of his teeth once again. After this week and the last, I seriously want to see him power through and rise to the top and win the whole thing! Wouldn’t that be so freaking satisfying?!
I am bummed for Oralia, though. At least she went out on a positive note: Amaury and Duff both genuinely enjoyed her dessert — it was just the presentation that was off. I hope she keeps in mind that, even though she technically went home in week two, she actually outlasted six other contestants, so she made it quite far; we mustn’t forget the absolute carnage that was week one.
Highlights this week included: watching Clement convert fellow Frenchman Amaury Guichon to a veggies-in-dessert appreciater; watching Rochelle “die and go to heaven” after receiving such glowing praises for her stunning raspberry entremets; Robert voluntarily choosing to work with matcha, when he could have chosen literally any other, less disgusting nutty flavor, and somehow nailing it (?!?!); Casey’s impressive comeback with a stunning geometric mousse cake in the second challenge after her first challenge was pretty weak (chocolate too dense); and, listening to Amaury pronounce “BAH-na-na” and “prah-LEE-na.” Delightful. Here’s the recap:
Skills Challenge: modernize a classic dessert; randomly assigned
A dessert is called “sexy”: 1 time (running total: 3)
Superlatives from the judges: 0 (running total 1)
Dead family members mentioned: 0 (running total 1)
Duff’s gaping maw spotted: 2 times (running total 4)
The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Florencia’s “dark and indulgent” chocolate brownie entremets with gianduja mousse, caramel truffle, & milk chocolate. The chocolatiest!
Wins so far: Juan (1), Molly (1)
What did we think? Are you watching this too? What are your thoughts? Leave me your comments! I don’t care if you’re reading this three-plus years from now and the show is old news and you think I no longer care. I still do, I assure you. See you back here next week!
First of all, if you’re in a rough spot and thinking about trying AA: do it. You should go. 110%. Go now! Close this tab immediately and go find your nearest meeting. Don’t let my whiny, nitpicky little complaints in this post deter you. Go find out what it’s like for yourself. I firmly believe that everyone, especially folks who struggle with drinking, can benefit greatly from AA, and it really does save lives.
But if you give it your best shot and it still doesn’t help, don’t give up. There are other ways out.
.
Here it is: the famous White Chip. I picked up quite a few White Chips during my four years in AA. Even though I didn’t actually get sober in AA, this is one of the last ones I picked up there, and it’s the only one I somehow never managed to lose, so it stays with me to this day, even though I don’t count myself a member of the program anymore. It’s nice, isn’t it? You should go get one of your own!
March is Sobriety Month here at MiTHology (4.0), and so, going along with that theme, I wanna talk for a minute about the program of Alcoholics Anonymous.
You’ve probably heard me mention in previous posts that my sobriety saga began in AA. For some time, I was quite entrenched in it. But, I no longer go to meetings. In the following post I will elaborate on why that is.
Here’s the abridged version of my early sobriety lore. January 2015, at age 25: started going to AA meetings, and fell in love with it: the watertight logical soundness of the philosophy, the black-and-white clarity, the infinitely quotable literature. I went to at least one meeting a day, religiously. Spent four years in the rooms, going through the 12 Steps with two different sponsors, doing it all very “by the book,” achieving a year and change here, almost a year there, and many stretches of a few days or weeks. It didn’t stick though. On paper, I loved AA, but in practice, in my own life, it didn’t seem to work. Early 2019, at age 29: still not sober, fed up with it all, quit meetings and finally just struck out on my own and decided to try it in isolation. Seven years later, here I am, still sober.
So, AA didn’t work for me long-term. But I still love it, and would encourage anyone to try it.
Some people accuse AA of being a cult. That is a ridiculous accusation (and I’m willing to bet that those people probably got their feelings hurt by some sponsor’s brutal honesty). It’s not a cult. Yes, it is religious – which, imo, proves that at least some semblance of religion is necessary for basic human functioning, if the human in question is sane – but it’s about as secular as a religious program can be, so that anyone, even an atheist, can get on board. (If you can’t deal with AA because of the God stuff, then that’s a you problem; it’s not only possible, but encouraged, to make your Higher Power anything at all, as long as it’s not yourself.)
Some people complain that the program is too trite, its literature and signage too loaded with sappy little truisms that might be enlightening if you’re a total brainless doofus who’s never had a single coherent introspective thought in your life, but aren’t substantial or deep enough for an intelligent mind to really grasp onto or be moved by.
But here’s the thing: all those sappy little truisms, are truisms precisely because they are true. So many of the important truths of being a human are really very simple. We love to overcomplicate matters, we love to think that we are special and advanced – but the truth is, no one is too smart for the things they teach you in AA. If you think you are, then again, that’s a you problem.
So yes, I support AA and have great respect for those who thrive in it. Why, then, do I not participate myself?
I guess I’m a hypocrite. I’m guilty of the very thing that I just accused other people of doing: thinking my situation is too complicated, too unique. A big part of AA is Fellowship. I have AVPD, which makes “Fellowship” rather… tricky. It’s hard for me to reap much benefit from all that fellowship. It’s like I have an allergy to it. Some people are allergic to certain medicines; those people have to find alternative treatments.
Maybe if I didn’t have this disorder, I’d have been able to thrive in AA. I really wanted to. Desperately, in fact. If you know me, you know I’ve always had complicated (there it is) feelings about being a misfit; I’m kinda proud of it, but also I’ve always longed to belong somewhere, to find My People. I thought maybe the AAs were My People at last, but alas, the search continues. AVPD makes it really hard to be a participating member of a group like that.
But even if not for the AVPD mucking things up, I’m not sure if I’m as completely enamored of the AA way of thinking as I used to be. There are a few points about it that I take issue with.
(1)Some Of Us Actually Have Self-Awareness
The big one is this. AA’s Twelve Steps presume that you lack self-awareness; that you are lying to yourself about things, that you are avoiding taking responsibility for your own BS.
Some of us have the opposite problem. We know all the things that are wrong with us; trust me, we know them very well. We do take responsibility for our own failings, and already feel bad about them. Constantly. To a fault. AA was not designed with people like us in mind.
And I know that a seasoned AA, reading this, would tell me: “you’re just not being honest with yourself 😇”, which is like their trump card. You can always accuse someone of not being honest with themselves, because they have no way to prove you wrong.
Doing the Fourth and Fifth Steps never revealed anything to me about myself. There was never a breakthrough moment. I didn’t feel that seen or understood. Despite my best efforts, I didn’t feel like I’d bared my soul. It was just kinda tedious and awkward.
I actually regret both my Fifth Steps because, in trying to do everything by the book – “don’t trust your instincts, look where they got you! Trust your sponsor, who’s clearly doing what you’ve proven yourself unable to do!” – in taking this advice and ignoring my intuition, I was led to do some really awkward and unnecessary and even inappropriate Sixth Steps, which to this day I cringe painfully about. I was so desperate to do everything right, and really didn’t know whether to trust myself at all, which is understandable; but I wish I’d trusted my gut just a little.
Believe me! I wish I’d experienced a breakthrough with the Fifth Step. I’d kill to learn the secret, to be able to name the cause of my issues, to identify where the issue has actually been hiding so that I could begin to tackle it. I’ve spent so much of my life trying to figure out what my dark secret was, what I was hiding from myself, what was I being dishonest with myself about, like some repressed trauma or something. Nope. It wasn’t until I got my AVPD diagnosis that I realized that what I’d known intuitively all along was right: the problem was just me, my whole personality. It wasn’t something specific that I could identify and heal from.
“AA works for everyone,” the seasoned AA would reply, “and if you think you’re the exception, then you’re just not being honest with yourself 😇.” Ha!, I wish I weren’t being honest with myself!
I agree that everyone can learn something from AA – I don’t think anyone out there is “too smart” for it. But I do think some people have certain dispositions or conditions that make them less-promising candidates for the AA treatment. And having a high degree of self-awareness, or an untreatable disorder that affects one’s ability to be social, are both examples of such dispositions.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t try AA, if you’re considering it. You absolutely should. Go and try it for yourself, but if it doesn’t work, don’t give up.
(2) Sponsors Aren’t Priests
My second beef with AA is this: sponsors are not priests. “Just do whatever your sponsor says” is not always good advice! These people don’t have psych degrees, they didn’t go to seminary – they are not necessarily equipped to be spiritual advisors or to give good advice.
I know, I know – the sponsor isn’t meant to be infallible, and if you treat them that way, that’s a you problem (all problems are you problems, in AA; that’s not hyperbole, that’s doctrine). The sponsor is just supposed to be a mentor, and their advice is supposed to be a simple “here’s what I would do in your shoes to help you stay sober.” I get that. But I guess as a Catholic, it strikes me as problematic to see folks in need relying on some other random alcoholic to hear their Fifth Step rather than a Priest in the Sacrament of Penance. This is where the program’s lack of actual religion causes it to fall short.
And yeah, I know, the very fact that the sponsor isn’t a professional nor a cleric is part of the magic. They’re just another recovering alcoholic with no particular obligation to you, not getting a paycheck, just doing this for the sheer love of the game. I understand that, in theory. But I still think you’re better off with the Sacraments, which are much safer, and have much more real effects on your soul.
(To be fair, I don’t really have any IRL friends, either, and still kinda struggle to understand the hows and whys of IRL human friendship; so this might just be a me problem.)
(3) Some Of Us Need To Touch Grass
My third and final beef with AA, and the main reason I don’t go back anymore, is really a personal one – not a philosophical issue, just a subjective experience.
For me personally, remaining steeped in the atmosphere of early sobriety, spending all those hours talking about booze and hearing about booze, making it such a huge part of my consciousness, is actually unhelpful. I had to move on. I had to touch grass.
Some people really need to stay in the program. For those people, their addiction was all they had, and so their life is just a vacuum without it, they have zero other passions or hobbies or interests. That’s not meant to be disparaging. It’s just a different type of addicted person. A person like that needs to stay entrenched in AA, needs to make sobriety their whole life and pastime, because the only alternative is going back to drinking. I get that. I feel for those people. I support them. I hope they never miss a single meeting.
However, I am fortunate to be someone who – even though booze was my #1 and held a special place in my heart that nothing else ever will occupy – cares about and enjoys other things as well, such as: my family, my imaginary inner world, reading, writing, art, my actual religion, watching TV, & etc. So I was able to kind of build a life and identity using those, when I got sober. Some people don’t have those to work with. It doesn’t make them more valid or their addiction more deserving of treatment. It’s just a different manifestation of the same disease.
Which is why I only started to get better once I stepped out of those rooms. But, still, some of the stuff I leaned in there was really invaluable; I got some great advice, met some great people, and can honestly say that no one there was ever cruel or shady or judgmental towards me – people were completely genuine and sincere. The magic is real. It just doesn’t work on me.
I kinda wish it did. I’d love to go back, because I miss it, the routine, the warmth, the familiar smells of coffee and basement. But there’d be no point. I’m not going to do the Steps again nor get a sponsor again — why would I?
And even though they’d welcome me back, and embrace me as one of their own, I know I’m unfortunately really not.
“If you think you’re not one of us, you’re just not being honest with yourself 😇,” they’d surely reply.
To which I’d respond: being sober in AA doesn’t make you omniscient. AA is not the Church. It’s just a bunch of people, and not all people have the same brain. But you know what?, if it helps you stay sober to believe that, that I, and literally anyone who’s ever been addicted to alcohol, “need” to be in AA, that I’d be better off there and that I’m doomed to relapse if I don’t go back to a meeting – then go ahead. You do you. I don’t want to prove you wrong if it means puttimg a crack in your support structure. I don’t need to win this argument at the possible price of your life.
.
So yeah. If you’re newly sober or thinking about getting sober and reading this, and starting to doubt whether AA will work for you, I beg you, I am literally begging you, to go try it. This is just my stupid little blog where I come to process my stupid little feewings; and, after all, there’s a chance I’m not being honest with myself, and lack the self-awareness to see that! (😵💫) In any case, you really need to go check it out for yourself. My email address’s in the “about” page if you wanna talk about it (or anything else).
MiTHology (4.0) 