The Nevermets

[naomi24]

//Long-distance lovers turn their virtual romance into reality as they meet face-to-face for the first time and immerse themselves in each other's worlds... will their connections flourish or fail?//

 

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-nevermets

 

I've watched a couple of episodes - some sad, some perplexing, some jaw-dropping.  I'll watch on.

[Rosie29]

Me too naomi - I'm desperate to know what happens.

[barry1010]

I don't know what to think about the 17 year old boy who went to India to meet a 27 year old woman.  He'd never travelled further than 30 miles from home and had never been on a train on his own.

Hopefully he will gained a lot of confidence and maturity and run for his sanity from her marriage mad family 

[naomi24]

 Me too, Rosie.  The boy and the Indian girl almost had me in tears - and I can't believe that other girl went to Dubai twice!  

[barry1010]

That poor deluded woman believing she was in love with that awful younger man in the Philippines.

Don't get me started on that money grabbing woman who believes a valet in Dubai is a millionaire. He didn't show she went to Dubai previously, he doesn't deserve a second chance.

Of course this sort of show isn't my sort of thing, it just happened to be on

[naomi24]

That's really sad, barry.  They clearly care a lot about each other.

[naomi24]

^I mean the boy and the Indian lady, barry.

 

That woman who went to Dubai is a gold-digger.  If he didnt turn up the first time there's no way she should have gone again!

 

And the woman and the bloke in the Philippines!  If he'd said to me what he said to her when they were with his childish mates it would have been 'TAXI!' 

[naomi24]

I can't help thinking Thailand isn't going to turn out well for the shy 38 year old who has never had a girlfriend.  Alarm bells with that one.  That woman is all too keen.

[barry1010]

He seems so naive, that 38 year old. 

Most of them appear to be vulnerable, except the money grabbing gold digger who is as hard as nails.

Hope the programme isn't taking advantage of people that have no idea of the consequences of having their private lives on TV 

[andy-hughes]

I find this kind of format the modern equivalent of looking through the bars in Bedlam for a Sunday treat.

Exploiting emotionally damaged people is not my idea of entertainment. 

[naomi24]

They're not 'emotionally' damaged. They're people who have met other people on line and formed relationships with them.   

[andy-hughes]

You don't know that.

Neither do I, but involving yourself in national exposure of your personal life is not the behavior of balanced secure individuals. 

I think it is exploitative. 

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, You haven't seen it.  As for exploitative - they're no doubt earning well from it.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, You haven't seen it. //

You don't know that.

// As for exploitative - they're no doubt earning well from it. //

Is that your criteria for defending exploitation - that they are receiving money for being exploited?

Really?

[naomi24]

andy hughes, Let me get this right,  When you said //Exploiting emotionally damaged people is not my idea of entertainment.// didn't you mean it?

 

//Is that your criteria for defending exploitation - that they are receiving money for being exploited?//

 

This is not - in my opinion - exploitation.  No one forced them to take part in the programme.  You're guessing that they're 'emotionally damaged' - not something, having watched the programme, I would agree with.  Yet again you're creating argument for the sake of creating argument.

[barry1010]

Your opinion would hold some validity had you watched at least one episode, Andy.

As far as I can remember all the British people featured have been in an online relationship for at least 12 months and they all have supportive families.

[andy-hughes]

barry - // 

Your opinion would hold some validity had you watched at least one episode, Andy. //

Like naomi, you are assuming, on no basis whatsoever, that I have not watched any of the programmes.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // andy hughes, Let me get this right,  When you said //Exploiting emotionally damaged people is not my idea of entertainment.// didn't you mean it? //

I did mean it, but that does not mean I have not watched it, that is your assumption, based on no evidence.

Just because something does not appeal to me does not automatically mean I am making a judgement about it without having ever seen it.

I never said that, you have made it up.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // 

//Is that your criteria for defending exploitation - that they are receiving money for being exploited?//

This is not - in my opinion - exploitation.  

That's not the point I am making.

Whether or not the individuals are being exploited is something we can agree to differ on.

Your defence of exploitation, regardless of the circumstances, is that payment makes it alright.

It doesn't.

[naomi24]

andy hughes, in one breath you say you don't watch anything that exploits 'emotionally damaged' people - assuming that these people are emotionally damaged - and in the next you contradict yourself simply because you won't concede that you haven't watched it and therefore cannot speak from experience.

[naomi24]

andy hughes, I'm not defending exploitation.