A The Bachelor Community
Monday 8:00 PM on ABC

Our nation has been rocked to its core! International diplomacy has capsized! Our very worth as human beings is being tested, and we're failing. In case you haven't yet heard, our country's most handsome male specimen, Mr. Juan Pablo Galavis, a.k.a. the Spanish-soccer-star-turned-Bachelor, is in some agua calor for some mouth diarrhea that erupted from his paella-hole on Friday night.

Here's one of the controversial quotes from an interview Juan Pablo gave to TheTVPage, in which he was asked whether The Bachelor should ever feature an openly gay Bachelor: 

I respect them, but honestly, I don’t think it's a good example for kids to watch that on TV.

Not only does the statement imply that Juan Pablo thinks it's okay for kids to watch him canoodle with two dozen different women and swap a bunch of spit in the name of finding the right mother for his child, he went on to dig his hole a little deeper:

There's this thing about gay people—it seems to me, you know, I don't know if I'm mistaken or not—I have a lot of friends like that, but they're more pervert in a sense. And to me, the show would be too strong, too hard,  to watch on TV.

Juan Pablo! Stop it! Stop talking! Just stop it! You're killing yourself here!

Here's the full audio from the interview:


After uproar ensued online, Juan Pablo himself took to Facebook to apologize:

People,

I want to apologize to all the people I may have offended because of my comments on having a Gay or Bisexual Bachelor. The comment was taken out of context. If you listen to the entire interview, there’s nothing but respect for Gay people and their families. I have many gay friends and one of my closest friends who’s like a brother has been a constant in my life especially during the past 5 months. The word pervert was not what I meant to say and I am very sorry about it. Everyone knows English is my second language and my vocabulary is not as broad as it is in Spanish and, because of this, sometimes I use the wrong words to express myself. What I meant to say was that gay people are more affectionate and intense and for a segment of the TV audience this would be too racy to accept. The show is very racy as it is and I don’t let my 5 year old daughter watch it. Once again, I’m sorry for how my words were taken. I would never disrespect anyone.

Sinceramente,

Juan Pablo Galavis

But that didn't appear to be enough for ABC and Bachelor producer Warner Horizon, as they joined together for this statement: 

Juan Pablo’s comments were careless, thoughtless and insensitive, and in no way reflect the views of the network, the show’s producers or studio.

Where do YOU stand on the situation? Personally, I don't think I really put too much stock in the opinion of a reality star, so I'm just going to grab this tub of popcorn and watch the show from afar. 


Previously Aired Episode

AIRED ON 3/14/2016

Season 20 : Episode 12

81 Comments
Comments (81)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
Anyone who has been watching or reading about the bachelor knows Juan Pablo English is not perfect. Considering it was the last question I would bet it was planned. What better plubisity . Get the world involved. I'd say we all fell for it and Juan Pablo is the scape goat.
As for gays , no problems from me.
As for a gay bachelor or even bachelorette , why not . Everyone is looking for love. If it works in this forum , great.
No kids should be watching any of these shows regardless who is on it.

Reply
Flag
A lot of TV shows have a gay character to be provocative. They often don't treat that character like the other characters. They go out of their way to point out as often as they can that the character is gay. This is especially true for lesbians. If you want gay people to be accepted as no different than straight people, pointing out the difference constantly isn't really a good way to make that happen.

I could give plenty of examples, but the first few that come to mind are Captain Jack on Doctor Who and Angela on Bones.

Captain Jack hits on EVERY attractive man he sees. It's mentioned repeatedly by himself and others that he'll go to bed with just about anyone. This is very different from the way other characters on Doctor Who are treated. There is very little mention of sex regarding other characters. Rory, Mickey, Rose, Amy, etc didn't walk around hitting on everyone they came across.

On Bones, many times when Angela's past is mentioned, it's done in the context of her sleeping around. When the story involves a man, her husband doesn't want to know about it. But when it's about a woman, he practically salivates at whatever few details she's willing to tell him.

So if you're going to get angry at Juan Pablo for his opinions, perhaps you should get angry at the writers who think that someone's sexuality should be used to either titillate the audience or create controversy.

That being said, I've never watched the Bachelor. And he's at least partly right. It's not a great idea for a show.
More+
3
Reply
Flag
I'm 100% against a gay Bachelor. But I'm also 100% against a straight Bachelor.
5
Reply
Flag
His opinion is dumb and ignorant, but truthfully a gay version of the Bachelor isn't practical at all without some serious retooling (hehe). A bunch of hot, young, horny gay guys living together in a romantic getaway? Need I point out the gaping flaw?
2
Reply
Flag
Good point, but geez, a "gaping" flaw? Ugh.
Reply
Flag
Poor choice of word, given the context.
Reply
Flag
The most shocking thing about this piece is the fact that he's supposed to be Spanish? Did ABC try to find the whitest looking Spanish guy or what? Never seen the show, but if he's throwing around stereotypical phrases such as "Ay caramba" then I seriously would be raising my eyebrow at this dude.

Oh, and isn't this show about fucking random women till you find "the one?" So who's the real pervert here?
6
Reply
Flag
It's offensive to me that this is considered news. He barely even qualifies as a celebrity. His statements weren't hateful, and didn't contain any opinions against gay rights. What he said was kind of ignorant, but he said very clearly that he might be completely wrong. That's the only part of his statement where it's clear that he meant what he said. His statements aren't anywhere near as vile as the statements made by a lot of top politicians...and this guy is a complete nobody. So I find it bizarre that this is getting attention at all.

It irritates me that when these things hit the news, everyone seems to be judging the offending statements as if they had been carefully thought out press releases, rather than statements made in conversation. In this case, the statements were even made in a foreign language. It really doesn't make sense to assume that the person must have meant exactly what he said.

This past week, we have also read about how some movie director described Jennifer Lawrence's workload as "twelve years a slave", and how Madonna used the n-word in a description of a photo of her son. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone could get offended by the slave comment. If anything, I'm offended by the apology, because it only encourages them. Madonna clearly didn't mean it in a racist way, so what's this really about? Are we supposed to be upset that someone who used to be a pop star doesn't know what will make people (pretend to be?) angry?
More+
2
Reply
Flag
Personally, an off-the-cuff comment that hasn't been thought out is more offensive/worse because it's just that--a person doesn't get to refine, retool, or reorganize their thoughts. It gives an actual insight into their gut response to something and what they really feel. The less polished and practiced, the more likely it is to be substantive and truthful.
Reply
Flag
Sometimes an unpolished statement gives a better insight into what the person is thinking, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just gives you the wrong idea. So I would say that some caution is required when you examine someone's unpolished statements. But everyone always assumes the worst, as if the worst possible interpretation is always the only one possible.
Reply
Flag
Okay, I will grant you that. Circumstances do dictate how reliable such statements can be. That's fair.
Reply
Flag
I find the "12 years a slave" comment more idiotic than anything else, but that's white folk for you! And you're acting like the n word had just started being put in use recently, or at least to me, that's what it sounds like you're saying by saying she doesn't know what will make people angry. Madonna is a cultural appropriating idiot, who swears she's entitled to saying that word because she's slept with plenty of black men. But not only that, she's hated by numerous people of numerous races for a reason. She's the one that keeps putting her own foot in her mouth.
6
Reply
Flag
"...but that's white folk for you!..."

That's racist! I'm only half kidding. I don't find your statement offensive, but it's interesting to me that if you had been famous and white, you wouldn't have been able to make a statement at this level of racism (or a corresponding statement about gay people) without making the news all around the world. This is the sort of thing I'm objecting to, and the only point I'm trying to make. A presidential candidate saying that there's something wrong with his country when gays can serve openly in the military should make the news, but a reality-show nobody who makes a slightly offensive but not hateful comment shouldn't be interesting to anyone.

Regarding Madonna, even if she is an idiot, I would expect that she knows that most black people think that white people should never use the n-word. So what she did indicates that she doesn't respect that, and thinks that it should be OK to use it in ways that aren't actually racist. This is kind of dumb, but if she's already considered an idiot, that only makes it less interesting.
2
Reply
Flag
We, as a society, deserve every one of these "scandals", whether the comments come from interviews, blogs, tweets, or just overheard comments reported in the tabloids. We put too much stalk stock in following what famous people say and do. Just because this bozo was on a "reality" show, why do we insist on putting a microphone in his face and expect ANYTHING worthwhile to come out. Same goes for any other "celebrities", who, because we like the characters they play, or the songs they sing, get elevated to the status of gods to us. News flash: they're just people, and prone to the same stupid thinking as anyone else. Why we keep thinking they should be any better is a mystery to me.
9
Reply
Flag
It's a very simple test. If you say dumb things about anyone, let alone gay people, then you're stupid. Being good-looking doesn't buy you a hall pass on this. Good looks fade but stupidity is forever.
3
Reply
Flag
There was a gay bachelor show... It was called Boy meets Boy
And it was terrible, not because of the gay theme, simply because it was terrible.
4
Reply
Flag
talking about prejudice and stereoptype, the fact that his mother tongue is spanish doesn't mean that he comes from Spain, and also paella is a typical dish from a region in Spain, not its national dish (check your facts before making such generalisations). It is annoying, specially when you're discussing news about discriminatory remarks.
9
Reply
Flag
Who cares what a reality star thinks?
4
Reply
Flag
I don't watch the show but Juan Pablo's apology sounds very very familiar. Juan Pablo are you out there?
1
Reply
Flag
That's what I thought - the apology sounds very familiar! It's like the PR reps for this summer's Big Brother idiots wrote that statement. "Taken out of context" - ugh! Putting aside any substantive judgments as to whether Juan Pablo screwed up, I'm just so sick of that catchphrase's use as a virtual delete button on what people wish they hadn't said.
Reply
Flag
Stop asking questions if you won't like the answers.
1
Reply
Flag
I'm not sure exactly what Mr Galavis was trying to say. But I do know a guy on a show where he makes out/beds an assortment of horndog bachelorettes needs to be careful not to throw stones.
9
Reply
Flag
I think the way someone apologizes in situations like this is much more telling than the original comments. Good apologies are sincere. They accept responsibility. They go something like, "I know what I said hurt a lot of people and I'm truly sorry." Bad apologies usually include things like, "My comments were taken out of context," or "I'm not a (racist/homophobe/mysogynist, etc.)! Some of my best friends are (insert offended group here)." Sorry, Juan Pablo, that was a bad apology.
24
Reply
Flag
Oh sweet baby goodness, enough. Enough. People need to stop taking reality stars so seriously. In addition to the fact that they are REALITY TELEVISION STARS, their comments are almost always taken out of context anyway because tabloid rags love a juicy gossip story.
3
Reply
Flag
I think it's probably less the reality-star-said-it thing and more the continued-oppression-and-equation-with-perversion-of-gay-people thing.
2
Reply
Flag
This is true but IMO the words gay and pervert should never be used in the same sentence, as a gay man that to me is very offensive, thats like saying were child molesters, 2 totally different things, and its comments like these that make us look bad & prove that we will never fully earn a place in society.
6
Reply
Flag
Fair enough, and I agree that it's sickening. But people's peronal opinions against homosexuality (outdated and bigoted though they may be) get so horribly skewed by media outlets just for the sake of selling stories, garnering more web traffic, etc. And especially in this case, where English clearly isn't this guy's first language.
3
Reply
Flag
"...thats like saying were child molesters..."

No it's not.
1
Reply
Flag
>thats like saying were child molesters,

No, for that you had to bypass reality television and go to a head of state, for this is essentially what Vladimir Putin said this week, saying gays were welcome at the Olympics as long as they stayed away from the children. Maybe Putin was trying out for a spot on reality TV for the next time he temporarily puts a puppet in charge of the country?
3
Reply
Flag
What is it about the hot ones? when they smile you just wanna kiss them and when they speak, you just wanna smother them with Narvik A or B!!.
6
Reply
Flag
I love how Warner Horizon threw him under the bus to fend for himself....hilarious
11
Reply
Flag
I would totally love to have a Gay version of the Bachelor or the Bachelorette. Even more so a Bi one, with male and female contenders for the hand of the Bachelor(ette).
12
Reply
Flag
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3dd1026448/the-first-gay-bachelor-with-jesse-tyler-ferguson-and-george-takei
1
Reply
Flag
"A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila"?
9
Reply
Flag
Extremely old fashioned viewpoint. Glad ABC was quick to backpedal that one. Even his "altered" wording doesn't work to make it any less offensive. How dare the gay people also want to continually make out with their bachelor at every turn!! THAT IS TOO RISQUE! But because I'm straight, it's totally legit now.

Seriously, people. Ridiculous.
10
Reply
Flag
To be fair, he does have some semblance of a point. 21 extremely attractive, gay men all in one house? I'm not saying there's going to be a orgy but, short of having producers walk the halls like it's a boarding school, some of them are going to swap a little more than spit. I've never watched the show in my life but, as I understand it, the intent is that the titular bachelor is looking "the one" amongst a group of 20 individuals. It's kind of hard to sell a pairing as "OTP" when half the cast is wantonly shagging the other half of the cast.

That said, there's no reason by a gay Bachelor wouldn't work in principle. I'd be interested to hear his comments on male perversion as it relates to a gay Bachelorette. Something tells me ABC's ratings would sky-rocket.
5
Reply
Flag
I'm not sure I see what his "point" is (or his semblance of a point) that you're trying to defend is. That it's not a good idea for kids to see it, because (in theory) contestants would be swapping spit? Isn't that what editing is for? If the premise of the show is one person finding love (which we all know is faked anyway, most of the time), wouldn't the show do some editing to avoid all of the "not for kids" things he's worried about?

And if he's just worried about the "not for kids" thing because he thinks homosexuality is gross and kids shouldn't see it, then that's pretty bad isn't it?
Reply
Flag
He has a point in that it would have to be handled very differently than the heterosexual Bachelor is. There would have to be a lot more security to stop religious loolahs from attacking the place. There'd have to be very specific contracts to stop things like 2 contestants deciding to leave the show and date each other(thus rendering the entire premise of the Bachelor moot). There'd have to be a lot more regulation in general. That's his semblance of a decent point. The rest is rubbish.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be on TV. But saying gay Bachelor should/would be treated the same as straight Bachelor is unrealistic.
Reply
Flag
But that's not what he said originally, is it? His point wasn't about security or a different approach. It was about raciness and "perversion", which presumes a lewdness in the LGBT community that apparently isn't present in the heterosexual community (according to this guy). While I understand what YOU'RE saying, I think you're kind of putting words in the guy's mouth that aren't there.
Reply
Flag
Hence the semblance :)
Flag
Actually, they've already done a Gay Bachelor show. It was called Boy Meets Boy, and the contestants weren't swapping spit between dates with the main Bachelor. Whether it was because of a contractual agreement or because they all knew they were there for that guy, apparently gay men (and women, I suspect) do have something known as self control!

So, I think the idea that a Gay Bachelor would make the show lose focus is totally not true.
11
Reply
Flag
I remember Boy Meets Boy. There were seeds of a good idea there, but the producers clearly didn't know what kind of show they wanted to make. Somehow, it ended up being boring. Darned shame.
Reply
Flag
Straight people have something known as self control aswell. That doesn't change the fact that there have been rumours of Bachelors sleeping with the contestants behind the scenes for years.

All I'm saying is that there would be a greater proclivity for it with gay men. Anyone who's so much as stuck a toe into the homosexual lifestyle knows that there's a lot more sexual freedom there than there is in the heterosexual lifestyle. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just don't see it selling that well on TV in the same way the Bachelor is marketted now.

Frankly, sticking 20 people in a house for however-long and believing that zero sex occurs is a ridiculous, regardless of what sexual orientation they are.
4
Reply
Flag
It's an especially ridiculous belief considering that producers ply the other 19 contestants who are not on the date and bored out of their skulls with alcohol night after night.
Reply
Flag
Wait... so because straight are already provocative and risque, this is why gay people shouldn't be allowed to participate in the same show under the same name? Humans are naturally sexual, no matter your race, gender, or sexual orientation, and if you're going to do a show about love, of course sex is going to be a factor. The fact that you're gay or bisexual doesn't add or change that. Those are just stereotypes.

There are plenty of promiscuous straight people, and plenty of closed legged gay people. People and their differences. Who knew, amirite?
7
Reply
Flag
I never said gay people shouldn't be allowed to participate. I said he had a semblance of a point, not an actual one. His thought process isn't mistaken. His conclusion is.

If they want to have a gay Bachelor, that's fine with me. I might even tune in for the first ep to see how they handle it(a feat in itself considering I despise reality TV). But it would have to operate very differently than the current one does. For example, it would make the show a bit of a farce(more farcical than it already is, anyway) if 2 of the contestants hooked up, decided to leave the show and date each other.
Flag
Follow this Show
Members
697
  • 8:30 pm
    Judge Judy
    NEW
    CBS
  • 9:00 pm
    What Would You Do?
    NEW
    ABC
  • 10:00 pm
    ABC