Speaker 1: So Bravo issued a response saying that cast members on
Speaker 1: reality television are not held to NDA's for any reason
Speaker 1: besides protecting storylines. That's just bullshit. People have been allegedly
Speaker 1: threatened that if they speak about anything in any area,
Speaker 1: including their experience on reality television or just anything like,
Speaker 1: if they talk about anything that goes on, they will
Speaker 1: get sued. It's certainly not about storylines, because you see
Speaker 1: storylines discussed everywhere on social media long before they air.
Speaker 1: So it's just a bullshit response, and it's a way
Speaker 1: for them to try to protect their reputation and make
Speaker 1: it like there are no illegal practices and violations behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. It's just a bullshit response. It's just a
Speaker 1: bullshit response. Having been on reality television, you definitely don't
Speaker 1: feel like you can speak out about anything behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: and storylines is never something that anybody even talks to
Speaker 1: you about not sharing. It's just not. I've never once
Speaker 1: heard of I've never once heard of Bravo or anyone
Speaker 1: saying like, please protect the storyline. It's just not because
Speaker 1: nothing is the same when it's on camera, and all
Speaker 1: the time storylines get revealed in the media and people
Speaker 1: never get threatened to be sued. But many people have
Speaker 1: been threatened to be sued by the powers that be
Speaker 1: for talking about anything that goes on in production. So
Speaker 1: that's just not true. But it's a great bullshit corporate answer. Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's seal the practice on the Rachel Ariana vander
Speaker 1: Pump Rules saga. The Bravo PR machine is vander pumping.
Speaker 1: The cast is out in droves speaking about this because
Speaker 1: it's a circular reference. It's a for profit scandal all machine.
Speaker 1: And the more they talk about it, the more I
Speaker 1: talk about it, the more money we pump into this atmosphere.
Speaker 1: So it's been a big thing over here because I
Speaker 1: had never really been immersed in this world, and now
Speaker 1: I have a PhD in this world that I was
Speaker 1: never really that interested in. So today I would like
Speaker 1: to just seal the practice. With any luck, we will
Speaker 1: not be talking about vander Pump Rules or this whole
Speaker 1: group for a while, so let's close it out. Many
Speaker 1: of you like when I talk about other things and
Speaker 1: lipgloss and tortilla chips and other not important things. Let's
Speaker 1: just seal the practice and hope that we don't have
Speaker 1: to talk about this for a while, shall we. So
Speaker 1: I've been thinking a lot about difficult breakups and divorce,
Speaker 1: and people do compare a difficult divorce to a death.
Speaker 1: There was even a debate on The Housewives about this
Speaker 1: one time. And every experience is different. No two divorces
Speaker 1: are the same, but there are many similarities. So if
Speaker 1: you've ever been through a terrible divorce illegal divorce meaning
Speaker 1: you are legally married and you have a legal custody battle,
Speaker 1: you know. And more than I think, it's like sixty
Speaker 1: percent of marriages end up in divorced. So many people
Speaker 1: know what it's like to go through a wretched divorce
Speaker 1: and custody battle. I am one of them. Now. Often
Speaker 1: people have to stay in the same house because they
Speaker 1: cannot afford They literally cannot afford to move out. And
Speaker 1: it is torture for people, and it is so horrible,
Speaker 1: And I've gotten letters and often one person uses the
Speaker 1: money as a power. I've spoken to people in situations
Speaker 1: where the power control over money is so great that
Speaker 1: one person has to live in the same house with someone.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are horrible stories. And if you know,
Speaker 1: you know, and many of you, unfortunately know. There's another
Speaker 1: reason that people sometimes stay under the same roof, and
Speaker 1: it's called abandonment, meaning say you're married, you're legally married,
Speaker 1: and you just want to get out of this house.
Speaker 1: You want to take your kid, and you want to
Speaker 1: get out if one party leaves the residence, because you
Speaker 1: can't just take your kid. You're married, you're legally married.
Speaker 1: You can't just grab your kid because that's like almost kidnapping.
Speaker 1: So let's say you want to go out and you
Speaker 1: just want to stay at your friends during the time
Speaker 1: that you're not with your kid, which by the way,
Speaker 1: hasn't been defined yet because no one has said what
Speaker 1: the schedule is, and if you're dealing with a monster,
Speaker 1: there's no schedule, and so the person will try to
Speaker 1: control and take the kid and like it's it's horrible,
Speaker 1: but you love your kids, so you have to be
Speaker 1: there and deal with this person that has become your
Speaker 1: instant enemy. In many cases, the person's recording you, following you,
Speaker 1: threatening you. I've been through all of it. Okay, I've
Speaker 1: been through hacked computers, I've been through emotional abuse. I've
Speaker 1: been through all of it. So I really I know
Speaker 1: what it's like. So you stay because of your child,
Speaker 1: but you are suffering in your home. You are that's
Speaker 1: the desperate. When you're desperate, you are suffering in your
Speaker 1: own home. And if one party says I cannot do
Speaker 1: this anymore, even for the child, I'll leave and then
Speaker 1: find a way to go back and visit or get
Speaker 1: my child and find some way before the courts say
Speaker 1: what's going to happen, because it seems like everything's in
Speaker 1: an emergency, Like you want to call the judge, but
Speaker 1: lawyers will say, that's not an emergency. You don't know
Speaker 1: the schedule yet, but you're like, no, this person's torturing
Speaker 1: me and we don't have a literal schedule, So what
Speaker 1: are you gonna do? Grab your child by the arm,
Speaker 1: kidnap them from school? Like if you know, you know?
Speaker 1: So one thing that a parent wants to do is
Speaker 1: not have the child experience that stress. I've been through
Speaker 1: this where I want to stay somewhere else and find
Speaker 1: a way to create some organization and take my child
Speaker 1: when I can. Again, no court has made ruling yet,
Speaker 1: so there's no set and stone thing. And if you
Speaker 1: have a difficult X and if you know, you know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing that there's no guardian, there's no principle, there's
Speaker 1: nobody saying what's what. So I had a situation where
Speaker 1: I said I have to go stay with a friend.
Speaker 1: I cannot have my child witness this toxicity. And the
Speaker 1: lawyers will say to you, that's abandonment because in some states,
Speaker 1: if one person leaves the marital residence, it's almost like
Speaker 1: you're leaving the marital residence, meaning you're forfeiting either the
Speaker 1: residence or possible custody. Even if you're spending a lot
Speaker 1: of time with your child, it's appeared to be called abandonment.
Speaker 1: All these things aren't literal based on what's going on.
Speaker 1: The courts have to have certain rules based on a
Speaker 1: majority of experiences. So there is something called abandonment, and
Speaker 1: lawyers will say you cannot leave the residence. In my case,
Speaker 1: I did that and the judge applauded it because they
Speaker 1: said that no child should ever experience an environment like this.
Speaker 1: So you have to try to make a decision for
Speaker 1: the child, the best interests of the child, they are
Speaker 1: the number one priority. You're having your own experience, and many,
Speaker 1: many bitter and spiteful exes will try to torture the
Speaker 1: other parent because they hate the other parent more than
Speaker 1: they love the child, so they try to be and
Speaker 1: they threaten and like, there are a lot of examples
Speaker 1: of this. These are situations where you're desperate. You're desperate,
Speaker 1: all the options are terrible and you don't know what
Speaker 1: to do. And it's by design because in divorce, if
Speaker 1: one person folds and gets weak, they just want it
Speaker 1: to be over. Sometimes people make bad divorce decisions, they
Speaker 1: go for bad agreements because they just want the suffering
Speaker 1: to be over. And that's by design by one party.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't have to be the party that has
Speaker 1: more money. It could be the party that has nothing
Speaker 1: to lose. It could be the party that's been really bitter.
Speaker 1: It could be the non moneyed spouse. There's so many
Speaker 1: different options. It could be the really really rich spouse
Speaker 1: that just wants to use money and turn off the
Speaker 1: electricity or turn off you turn off the credit cards,
Speaker 1: or turn off you know, the gas bill. Any way
Speaker 1: that one person suffers. And I've heard all of these examples.
Speaker 1: So when I say, I stand by the fact that
Speaker 1: a breakup with a legal marriage and a custody battle
Speaker 1: is very different than a breakup that is not legally binding,
Speaker 1: and that doesn't have kids. It doesn't mean that I
Speaker 1: don't have compassion for someone who goes through a terrible breakup.
Speaker 1: It means that I am allowed to say, and I
Speaker 1: have institutional knowledge on the topic, that a non legal
Speaker 1: marriage without children is not the same breakup as a
Speaker 1: breakup that I'm describing a really harsh, toxic breakup. I'm
Speaker 1: also going to double down and say that unless you
Speaker 1: are destitute or desperate, there is no reason why you
Speaker 1: would live under the same roof as someone who really
Speaker 1: really hurt you or from a very toxic, harsh breakup.
Speaker 1: It's just and I'm going to triple down and say
Speaker 1: that if you go through a terrible, terrible breakup and
Speaker 1: then a windfall of money and business opportunities comes, you're
Speaker 1: in rare air. That's a rarity. Most people that get
Speaker 1: cheated on and broken up with don't have an influx
Speaker 1: of opportunities. It does not invalidate the fact that you've
Speaker 1: gone through something terrible. It just helps. Most people that
Speaker 1: go through bad divorces and custody battles don't have a
Speaker 1: vehicle to make a lot of money off of that experience.
Speaker 1: And yes, I'm talking about my recent podcast with Rachel.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about vander Pomp rules because I validate Ariana's
Speaker 1: experience as a woman who went through a breakup and
Speaker 1: was cheated on. I also validate Rachel's experience of a
Speaker 1: woman who did terrible things for seven months, was duplicitous
Speaker 1: and cheated, but then was emotionally abused in the process.
Speaker 1: So it made two wrongs, don't make a right. She
Speaker 1: went to an emotional health facility for three months that
Speaker 1: she paid for, it wasn't paid for, and she worked
Speaker 1: on herself. I am allowed to validate her experience as
Speaker 1: much as I am validating that Arianna was cheated on
Speaker 1: and broken up with. And it may be unpopular, but
Speaker 1: I can handle the fact that two things can be
Speaker 1: going on at the same time. Ariana can have been
Speaker 1: cheated on. I can also say that breaking up with
Speaker 1: someone when it's not legally binding and not having children
Speaker 1: and going through a custody battle is not the same thing.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing. I've gone through both. I
Speaker 1: have not been in a relationship for ten years, so
Speaker 1: that's a different experience, and I validate that as a
Speaker 1: real relationship. It's also a for profit scandal. Scandalal is
Speaker 1: a for profit cheating scandal where two people have profited
Speaker 1: and one person has not. That may be unpopular, and
Speaker 1: that's okay, but it's a for profit scandal, and the
Speaker 1: more that we talk about it, the more money that
Speaker 1: they make. And nothing would be better than going through
Speaker 1: a horrible breakup and then being financially rewarded for it,
Speaker 1: and a breakup that is not legally binding and a
Speaker 1: custody battle. A breakup where you don't have children and
Speaker 1: you're not legally married is not the same as a
Speaker 1: custody battle and a legally binding marriage that ends up
Speaker 1: in divorce. That is a brutal experience. It is a
Speaker 1: brutal experience. I cannot see a situation besides desperation and
Speaker 1: destitution and maybe a for profit scandal that would allow
Speaker 1: for me to live under the same roof with someone
Speaker 1: that i'd gone through a horrible breakup with. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine working with and living with someone under these circumstances
Speaker 1: unless I was completely desperate or destitute or profiting off
Speaker 1: of the scandal. Sorry, it's not popular. I validate Ariana's experience.
Speaker 1: I validate anyone who's broken up with someone and for
Speaker 1: it to be twisted and for it to be portrayed
Speaker 1: that I don't validate someone's relationship because they don't have kids.
Speaker 1: It's not true. I validate every relationship that doesn't end
Speaker 1: up in children. I just am saying that a custody
Speaker 1: battle and a brutal divorce is very different than a
Speaker 1: breakup that's not legally binding. Sorry. I validate Ariana's experience
Speaker 1: as someone who's been cheated on and hurt. I also
Speaker 1: validate Rachel's experience as someone who has cheated for seven months,
Speaker 1: made horrible mistakes, went away to an emotional health facility
Speaker 1: for three months on her own dime, made no money
Speaker 1: from a scandal that is a for profit scandal. It
Speaker 1: may be unpopular, but it doesn't make it false. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, the podcasters are so obsessed with the fact
Speaker 1: that this podcast went to number one as a result
Speaker 1: of having Rachel on, So just be in the beginning
Speaker 1: was top five, was four and five, and I was
Speaker 1: really excited about that. It had never been to number one.
Speaker 1: And yes, it went to number one for almost a week,
Speaker 1: which was amazing, And other podcasters are really criticizing that, saying, well,
Speaker 1: if she hadn't had Rachel then it wouldn't have gone
Speaker 1: to number one, well exactly, but we did have Rachel
Speaker 1: and if jay Leno didn't have Hugh Grant on years
Speaker 1: ago after his scandal with Divine Brown, and jay Leno
Speaker 1: didn't have Hugh Grant sit down on the couch and
Speaker 1: say to Hugh Grant first sent in as he sat down,
Speaker 1: what the heck were you thinking after this scandal where
Speaker 1: Hugh Grant was with this prostitute. That night, jay Leno's
Speaker 1: show went to number one and beat David Letterman for
Speaker 1: the first time and it didn't flip back. So it's hysterical.
Speaker 1: Other podcasters that are you know that want to comment
Speaker 1: on but she wouldn't have been to number one. Who cares.
Speaker 1: I don't care how. I definitely don't care how we
Speaker 1: went to number one, and we will go to number
Speaker 1: one again. But it's so seeding with jealousy and so
Speaker 1: focused on other people's success and so focused on other
Speaker 1: people's journey instead of your own. And it's hilarious because
Speaker 1: it's really triggered people. So I say to you, in business,
Speaker 1: if you're doing something that is legal and ethical and
Speaker 1: moral and correct and smart business and you get to
Speaker 1: number one, you fucking grab that trophy and you own it.
Speaker 1: You be excited. So yeah, we got to number one
Speaker 1: because Rachel's team reached out to me because it's something
Speaker 1: very intelligent that I said, because we orchestrated and kept
Speaker 1: a secret an interview that is exactly how I heart myself,
Speaker 1: and Rachel and the listeners who tuned in for one, two,
Speaker 1: and three wanted it to go. So you can jump
Speaker 1: up and down and criticize it as much as you want.
Speaker 1: You can also be frustrated because you've gone to the
Speaker 1: powers that be and asked why you didn't get the
Speaker 1: interview and have vocally been very loud about the fact
Speaker 1: that you wanted the interview. And many of the people
Speaker 1: that are criticizing the podcast are people that have trashed
Speaker 1: this girl. So they trashed this girl, which I never did,
Speaker 1: and they wanted the interview, and now they're mad that
Speaker 1: I got the interview, and they keep finding all these
Speaker 1: different reasons why they're mad. The first one was that
Speaker 1: I didn't watch all of the shows, which I never
Speaker 1: wanted to watch all the shows, and she didn't want
Speaker 1: me to watch all the shows. So the people that
Speaker 1: the millions of people, the three million people that listen
Speaker 1: to one, two, and three, they could have stopped. They're happy.
Speaker 1: She's happy, I'm happy. Iheart's happy. There's like a handful
Speaker 1: of podcasters and bloggers that are and TikTokers that aren't happy. Well,
Speaker 1: go talk to a therapist because we're all thrilled. And
Speaker 1: we did go to number one, and yes, that was
Speaker 1: called smart. So let me ask you a question. All
Speaker 1: these bloggers that say that we're clout chasers, So these
Speaker 1: bloggers and podcasters, they say number one cloud chaser, did
Speaker 1: it to be relevant? I'm curious what is everyone else
Speaker 1: doing a podcast for. It seems to me that the
Speaker 1: people that are doing podcasts are doing it for a
Speaker 1: profit with the hopes of a profit. It also seems
Speaker 1: like they'd prefer to be number one, the number one million,
Speaker 1: So it seems like it's a for profit venture. And
Speaker 1: I'm happy to give them the name of some people
Speaker 1: on the ground, my team in Hawaii. If they want
Speaker 1: to do a four charity podcast, that would be amazing.
Speaker 1: But I think that it is for profit number one,
Speaker 1: but number and for clout and for relevance. So yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're relevant, you go to the top. If you're
Speaker 1: for cloud you go to the top. If you're not
Speaker 1: for clout, you go to the bottom. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they went to business school, but like that's kind
Speaker 1: of how that stuff works. Okay, let's break that down.
Speaker 1: First of all, nobody knows what my relationship is with
Speaker 1: Rachel and whether I care about her or I don't.
Speaker 1: But now are we in the Sharing is Caring podcast universe?
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this. All the people that
Speaker 1: all of these podcasts trash on reality TV, like that's
Speaker 1: literally the business of these podcasts. They trash reality TV?
Speaker 1: Do they care about the people that they're trashing? Are
Speaker 1: they only having guests on that they care about? Have
Speaker 1: we called Oprah and asked her if she deeply cared
Speaker 1: about every single guest she's ever had on? Do we
Speaker 1: call The Today Show and Good Morning America and ask
Speaker 1: if they care deeply about every guest they've ever had
Speaker 1: on while they run a for profit business. It is
Speaker 1: so obvious and so stupid and such dumb business and
Speaker 1: such dumb people who are saying that I didn't really
Speaker 1: care about Rachel, Well, if you're going to be jealous,
Speaker 1: please don't be stupid. At the same time, try to
Speaker 1: be one or the other jealous and stupid is a
Speaker 1: terrible combination, like and you have to have your facts
Speaker 1: back in you. So everybody who has a podcast who's
Speaker 1: criticized whether I cared about Rachel or not needs to
Speaker 1: make sure that every person they ever talk about including me,
Speaker 1: Because if they're talking about me and they're saying that
Speaker 1: I don't care and it's because I'm doing this for profit,
Speaker 1: are they not talking about me for their profit on
Speaker 1: their podcast and did they really care about me? Because
Speaker 1: I didn't get any Christmas cards from them. I didn't
Speaker 1: get any muffin baskets from these Sharing is Caring podcasts.
Speaker 1: So I'm so sorry everybody that we went to number
Speaker 1: one and that I had Rachel on and that it
Speaker 1: was just a terrible exploitation, because I'm going to in
Speaker 1: the future google Gaga that every single podcast guest and
Speaker 1: make sure that I want to snuggle with them and
Speaker 1: give them a lollipop and a Teddy Bear because they're
Speaker 1: my friends. We have to snuggle. I want to snuggle
Speaker 1: with all my podcast guys. I'm gonna call up Mark
Speaker 1: Cuban and be like, why didn't we snuggle? Do you
Speaker 1: think I care about you? Matthew McConaughey, are you thinking
Speaker 1: about whether I care about you? Before I have you on?
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton? Did you and Bill talk about whether I care?
Speaker 1: I had you on because I care about you. You're
Speaker 1: my friend. I'm only gonna have people that I really
Speaker 1: love and care about on the podcast because this is
Speaker 1: Valentine's Day and it's a Hallmark card and only podcasts
Speaker 1: with the ones you love. Fucking bullshit, sell your bullshit elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Bethany doesn't care about these people. She doesn't care. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is the caring podcast network, where we only care
Speaker 1: enough to talk about the ones we love. Like what
Speaker 1: be smart? When you're gonna be jealous, please be smart.
Speaker 1: Don't be jealous and stupid at the same time. It's
Speaker 1: a terrible combination.