Speaker 1: On today's show, Matt Paul takes another swipe at Ollie Frost.
Speaker 1: Mikayla Testa hard launches her new boyfriend as she binds
Speaker 1: this controversial view on cheating and what are your rights
Speaker 1: when it comes to getting a nightmare haircut? Hello, and
Speaker 1: welcome to Outspoken. It's your dose of the hottest influencer
Speaker 1: and pop culture news twice a week. I'm Abe Torba
Speaker 1: and people who are working from home and taking the
Speaker 1: piss need to take notice because this week it was
Speaker 1: reported that an Australian woman was fired after being caught
Speaker 1: out not doing enough work from home, so her work
Speaker 1: went to the extreme length of putting a key stroke
Speaker 1: monitoring device on her computer. What do you guys think? Look,
Speaker 1: I want to start off by saying we're not accusing
Speaker 1: any of our listeners for bludging whilst they're working from home,
Speaker 1: because that's what I hate. I hate that it's implied
Speaker 1: that if you work from home, you're not doing anything,
Speaker 1: because there's so many people who are doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: But in this case, I actually don't have much sympathy
Speaker 1: for this woman because she's clearly been caught out taking
Speaker 1: a piss and ruining it. For other people. I do
Speaker 1: think it's a little bit unfair that they tracked her
Speaker 1: computer because it really should be based on your output.
Speaker 1: I mean, if the woman isn't doing enough work, surely
Speaker 1: her employees should talk to her rather than basically stalking her.
Speaker 1: But it's not stalking her. I actually think it's really clever.
Speaker 1: You can always tell that a lot of officers will
Speaker 1: set up a morning meeting to make sure that their
Speaker 1: staff are actually awaken of doing stuff he're working for.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't do anything. That just means that people
Speaker 1: are available on the zoom and then they could literally
Speaker 1: close their computer lid and fuck off for the rest
Speaker 1: of the day. The keystroke monitoring, yeah, but at least
Speaker 1: it means you know, they're at their house, they're away.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, it depends what job you're doing.
Speaker 1: But the keystroke monitoring might not even reflect like this
Speaker 1: woman worked for an insurance company. Was she on the phones? Like?
Speaker 1: Did she need to be typing? So apparently a lot
Speaker 1: of her job was typing stuff, so they were able
Speaker 1: to identify that she wasn't doing her work. I am
Speaker 1: in two minds about the working from home situation because
Speaker 1: as someone who runs a small business. I would feel
Speaker 1: really nervous employing someone knowing that they're not in the
Speaker 1: office with me. I can't see what they're doing, particularly
Speaker 1: if there's someone new, But I don't know if you
Speaker 1: can trust them. Yeah. But the thing is from having
Speaker 1: an office job, it is so easy to not be
Speaker 1: doing your work and be on social media during when
Speaker 1: you're in the office. Yeah, people can bludge when they're
Speaker 1: in the office as well, because you just literally look
Speaker 1: like you're doing work, but you're on social media or
Speaker 1: you're doing your own thing unless you have someone standing
Speaker 1: over your shoulder watching everything you do. You need to
Speaker 1: actually have trust in the people you employ in both
Speaker 1: situations in the office and also from working from home.
Speaker 1: It's actually such a skill though, when you're at a
Speaker 1: job and you've got nothing to do, to look like
Speaker 1: you're busy, it's actually work. I heard a lot of
Speaker 1: people during COVID were actually using those those systems on
Speaker 1: their computer where it would automatically move their mouths around
Speaker 1: just in case they were being tracked by those keys.
Speaker 1: It's so they look active on team. Yes, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it says if you're away or if you're there. I
Speaker 1: do find it funny when bosses are like, you need
Speaker 1: to come back to the office for the culture, and
Speaker 1: the culture is literally just silence and people not even
Speaker 1: talking or working together. Well, what's horrifying is that there
Speaker 1: has been a lot of media coverage on this case.
Speaker 1: Is this going to mean that a lot of businesses
Speaker 1: are going to start using this technology or now will
Speaker 1: work as having the back of their mind? Shit, I
Speaker 1: actually better do my job because I might be caught
Speaker 1: out next.
Speaker 2: Would you make me a Walldorf?
Speaker 1: Shout Tammy Hambrose. Former fiance Matt Paul has taken another
Speaker 1: swipe at Nicky Westcott's fiance Ollie Frost. Now, the well
Speaker 1: known boyfriends of Instagram are in the midst of a
Speaker 1: very nasty business dispute that has been playing out publicly
Speaker 1: for the past few weeks, and as we mentioned on
Speaker 1: last week's episode, Matt is claiming that Ollie has squeezed
Speaker 1: him out of his stake in popular Burlyhead's restaurant A
Speaker 1: Man Now. Matt alleges that Ollie asked him to invest
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars in the business in twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: years on and the business is now in liquidation and
Speaker 1: Matt has no idea where his money is. And as
Speaker 1: we touched on last week, despite the Gold Coast restaurant
Speaker 1: closing down, Ollie and his business partner Jonathan Eddings have
Speaker 1: recently opened a bunch of new companies with similar names.
Speaker 1: And this isn't the first time that Olli and Jonathan's
Speaker 1: companies have faced trouble. The pair were the founders behind
Speaker 1: the defunct Grass in the Green music festival that went
Speaker 1: into administration late last year. Now, this festival ended up
Speaker 1: owing more than three million dollars to artists, fan suppliers
Speaker 1: and the tax office. And after we dropped last week's episode,
Speaker 1: we had quite a few listeners contacting us saying that
Speaker 1: they had been caught up in that debacle and still
Speaker 1: hadn't had their money returned to them. And in an
Speaker 1: interesting twist, an investigation found that more than seven hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in festival funds were loaned to Ollie and
Speaker 1: Jonathan's restaurant companies, which will never be paid back. The
Speaker 1: man was found to be one of the businesses propped
Speaker 1: up by the festival funds. So now they were all
Speaker 1: up to speed. This week, Matt Pool took a major
Speaker 1: swipe at Ollie Frost On Instagram, Matt shared a story
Speaker 1: of his desk with his laptop sitting on top of
Speaker 1: a newspaper and it just so happened that the newspaper
Speaker 1: was opened to an article about Olli and Maman and
Speaker 1: you clearly read the head line, which said restaurants firms
Speaker 1: facing two point three million dollar debts. Matt then captured
Speaker 1: the story back in the office for an honest day's work.
Speaker 1: I personally love this pettiness. This is something that I
Speaker 1: would do, and it's something that you have done before, Amy,
Speaker 1: it is something I've done. Unfortunately, my name was in
Speaker 1: the media a couple of years ago with stuff to
Speaker 1: do with a former employer, and I did enjoy putting
Speaker 1: in little newspaper articles that we just happened to be
Speaker 1: next to my breakfast in the mornings. And that's the thing,
Speaker 1: when you are locked in a legal dispute, you have
Speaker 1: to be subtle and giving a reaction like this, even
Speaker 1: though it might be sort of detrimental to the case,
Speaker 1: it makes you feel a little bit better. See, I
Speaker 1: don't know how subtle it is, because he added that
Speaker 1: caption that was pretty telling. Yeah, you can't get in
Speaker 1: trouble for that. I actually, yeah, I'm with Sophie. I
Speaker 1: think that's funny. I did laugh because I also saw
Speaker 1: that Matt Paul liked our Instagram post promoting last week's episode. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that was also a bit of a subtle swipe. Now,
Speaker 1: the recent article in the Gold Coast Bulletin was quite damning.
Speaker 1: It out line that, according to reports, Lodge with asig
Speaker 1: Ollie's restaurant companies have debts of more than two point
Speaker 1: three million to unsecured creditors, and the article also revealed
Speaker 1: the liquidatas were currently attempting to sell the business through
Speaker 1: a public advertising campaign. Now, Ollie and his business partner
Speaker 1: Jonathan have enlisted the help of a PR firm, but
Speaker 1: they declined to provide a comment to the paper. I
Speaker 1: do find that quite interesting that they have got a
Speaker 1: PR firm involved, because they know how detrimental this is
Speaker 1: to their image and also to the image of Nicky Wescott.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised that the PR company would take them on,
Speaker 1: considering it's been publicized that they owe so much money.
Speaker 1: We've had that recently, so for we had a company
Speaker 1: reach out to us that was in the papers, and
Speaker 1: that was clearly though in liquidation, and we're like, why
Speaker 1: would we take you on you're clearly not going to
Speaker 1: pay your bill. I mean a lot of companies do
Speaker 1: have to deal with crisis management, but as you say,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't feel that confident taking them on board. I
Speaker 1: would want the money up front before I started doing
Speaker 1: any work with them. And it's also important who you
Speaker 1: align yourself with though as a PR company. I'm actually
Speaker 1: surprised that they're not commenting. I think it looks like
Speaker 1: they're wiping their hands of the whole thing. I just
Speaker 1: think they probably get themselves in more trouble if they
Speaker 1: start putting comments out. I do think that it's best
Speaker 1: probably not to say something, because when they comment, it's
Speaker 1: just going to generate another story where they rehash all
Speaker 1: this negative information. They're waiting for the story to die.
Speaker 1: That's the strategy all were then hearing is one person's
Speaker 1: side of how terrible they are at business and how
Speaker 1: much they are with But I'm not seeing the other
Speaker 1: side to the story. They might be genuine reasons. Well,
Speaker 1: they might be crafting a positive news story if they're
Speaker 1: launching another business. You know, I really want to know
Speaker 1: what NICKI Westcott is thinking because she is having to
Speaker 1: front up and do a podcast every couple of days,
Speaker 1: and it would be really awkward when all of this
Speaker 1: is going on in the background. Because she's huge on
Speaker 1: the social scene. She and Lucy are always out and
Speaker 1: about at restaurants. I just think it's very awkward for them,
Speaker 1: the association. It is awkward, but it's her partner. It's
Speaker 1: not her. I get that it's not her, but the
Speaker 1: person that you're marrying, and your financial situation is merged
Speaker 1: with the How can you not? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: feel like it'd be interesting to say, see how many
Speaker 1: DMS she's receiving over this. Please? Can all of the
Speaker 1: boyfriends and husband stop staring at my ars every time
Speaker 1: I stap outside because I feel really bad for all
Speaker 1: the wives and girlfriends. TikToker and OnlyFans creator Mikayla Tester
Speaker 1: has debuted her new boyfriend by sharing an X rated
Speaker 1: photo of him, as well as a taste of their
Speaker 1: late night text message exchanges. Now. The new relationship comes
Speaker 1: just a year after Mikayla split from her longtime boyfriend
Speaker 1: Addis Paul. Now, so if this has put new meaning
Speaker 1: into hard launching a relationship. Yeah, a part in the pun.
Speaker 1: I mean, I was quite taken back when Mikayla's Instagram
Speaker 1: story popped up, and for those who haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: she shared a screenshot of a text message exchange as
Speaker 1: you said, Amy, which included a photo of the new guy. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we didn't actually get to see his face in the photos. Oh,
Speaker 1: I though you're gonna say something else. No, this photo,
Speaker 1: the best way I can describe it is this guy
Speaker 1: has grabbed his phone, he's standing in the nude, and
Speaker 1: he's positioned the photo up so you can't quite see
Speaker 1: his groin. I mean, if he had any pubes, I
Speaker 1: feel like you definitely see a hint of pubes and
Speaker 1: his face and his privates was strategically cut off. You
Speaker 1: can see his very chiseled body though. Yeah, he was
Speaker 1: absolutely ripped. And in this text message exchange, Mikayla says,
Speaker 1: they know and they don't mind. They like hearing about it. Though,
Speaker 1: I assume that she is talking about her OnlyFans, audience
Speaker 1: and her followers on Instagram, saying that they don't mind
Speaker 1: her being in a relationship. See. I wondered if that
Speaker 1: was about Adams Paul. I actually don't mind this reveal
Speaker 1: of a new relationship. It's better than just having the
Speaker 1: arm with the watch and the photo. It kind of
Speaker 1: takes it to a different level. It's quite funny because
Speaker 1: in this text message exchange, Mikayla responded saying, ah delicious.
Speaker 1: And it's funny because she actually tagged him in this
Speaker 1: Instagram story. So I of course had a bit of
Speaker 1: a stalk. And this guy's name is Emmanuel. He's eighteen
Speaker 1: years old, a body builder and also a fellow OnlyFans creator.
Speaker 1: They sound perfect together and many people were surprised to
Speaker 1: hear that there's a five year age gap between the
Speaker 1: two of them, because Mikayla is twenty three. But I
Speaker 1: think those people must be quite unaware of her dating
Speaker 1: history with k Leroy because kid Laroi is nineteen years
Speaker 1: old and they dated, I believe when Mikayla was eighteen.
Speaker 1: But do we actually think this is a relationship or
Speaker 1: is this just an onlyfan's collaboration. I think this relationship
Speaker 1: is genuine because Mikayla then shared that it was the
Speaker 1: end of her eurosummer and that she's been there for
Speaker 1: three months, and she wrote I miss Australia. My cats
Speaker 1: and my boyfriend so much. It's been a long three months.
Speaker 1: And then she revealed that Emmanuel has been looking after
Speaker 1: her cat Eddie, and she shared a photo of him
Speaker 1: cudled up with Eddie in her house. I'm sorry, so
Speaker 1: I don't think this is a genuine relationship. Why would
Speaker 1: you launch it by sharing that kind of photo Because
Speaker 1: it's her brand, it's teasing your audience into it. We're
Speaker 1: going to be collaborating soon. That's how I bet she'll
Speaker 1: do that. Anyway, It doesn't mean it isn't her boyfriend,
Speaker 1: Like she was doing stuff on OnlyFans with Adams Paul
Speaker 1: and that was a genuine relationship. I mean, this guy
Speaker 1: has I think thirty six thousand followers already, Obviously that
Speaker 1: number is going to climb. But I just think it's genuine.
Speaker 1: I mean, it makes sense that she would date someone
Speaker 1: who's in a similar to her, who understands it. I
Speaker 1: wonder if this is the guy that she was talking
Speaker 1: about in her White Fox boutique interview, because she said
Speaker 1: there was a guy living in the US who was
Speaker 1: actually from Melbourne, and I think he recently might have
Speaker 1: moved back or was visiting, so maybe he's made his
Speaker 1: stay more permanent.
Speaker 2: If you don't call him, I will no, no, Cram,
Speaker 2: I don't want you to do that.
Speaker 1: You can't do that.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna call Gino.
Speaker 1: You're gonna see him, and we're gonna get that haircut
Speaker 1: fixed up. I don't want you to call her. Rage Gee.
Speaker 1: I was scrolling on Facebook the other night and I
Speaker 1: came across a post from this poor woman on the
Speaker 1: Tee Time Facebook group who has had an absolute nightmare haircut.
Speaker 1: So she asked for a trim and a few face
Speaker 1: framing layers and she's ngured up having a hair completely butchered.
Speaker 1: I can't even describe. How would you describe it? You've
Speaker 1: seen the photo, Oh, my worst nightmare. So she had
Speaker 1: layers done, and I mean lucky thing. Her hair's very thick,
Speaker 1: but the layers they were literally like you could see
Speaker 1: each layer that had been cut in. It was It's
Speaker 1: sort of like when you cut a Barbie doll's hair
Speaker 1: at different lengths. It was a night looked like weird Barbie,
Speaker 1: didn't it. Yeah, poor girl. So apparently the hairdresser she
Speaker 1: went to had over twenty five years of experience, and
Speaker 1: she went onto the Facebook group to ask if anyone
Speaker 1: knew how she could fix this haircut. It was quite
Speaker 1: funny because someone in the group said she can actually
Speaker 1: claim for personal injury damage. So she said the same
Speaker 1: thing happened to her, and she was given eleven thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for personal and emotional damage. So the hair salon's
Speaker 1: insure it decided on the amount based on how long
Speaker 1: it would cost to pay for extensions for her for
Speaker 1: three to four years. I actually think that this woman
Speaker 1: deserved more than eleven thousand dollars. As someone who has
Speaker 1: very slow growing hair. Yeah, and the amount of money
Speaker 1: that you invest to get healthy hair as well, it
Speaker 1: is emotionally damaging as well. Imagine if you had an
Speaker 1: important event coming up that you had to go to,
Speaker 1: you probably have to buy a week If someone botched
Speaker 1: your face, they'd be liable. Or she was commenting saying,
Speaker 1: do I just shave it all off and get a wig?
Speaker 1: You do put so much trust in your hairdresser, and
Speaker 1: it's really scary going to a new salon. What actually
Speaker 1: is you're right when you do get a bad haircut. Well,
Speaker 1: I was pleased to learn that haircuts are actually covered
Speaker 1: under Australian consumer law, so hairdressers are required to ensure
Speaker 1: that their haircuts are delivered with reasonable skill and care,
Speaker 1: so depending on what happens to your hair, you can
Speaker 1: get a refund, a part refund, or a restyle. The
Speaker 1: biggest advice I took from reading about this is that
Speaker 1: you have to make your feelings heard when you're actually
Speaker 1: at the salon. And I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: find that difficult because how many times have you got
Speaker 1: a bad haircut and you've just gone like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all good and walked out and just cried and
Speaker 1: not said any Yeah. I've been listening to the Bride
Speaker 1: to b podcast, which is done by Adoor Beauty. I've
Speaker 1: really been enjoying binging those episodes, and they had a
Speaker 1: hairdresser on and the hairdresser was saying, this happens all
Speaker 1: the time with bridal trials, and the bridle will be
Speaker 1: just too shy to say that they actually fucking hate
Speaker 1: the whole thing, and they'll either end up going and
Speaker 1: getting someone else to do it for them, or the
Speaker 1: day just being unhappy with it. Yeah, it is really
Speaker 1: hard to say that you don't like something in person.
Speaker 1: There are instances if you have like a color goes wrong,
Speaker 1: you can actually come back, but you've just got to
Speaker 1: do it asap, and if you're not happy with the
Speaker 1: response from the hairdresser, you can actually contact the Office
Speaker 1: of Fair Trading in your state. That's the thing though,
Speaker 1: if someone has fucked up your head this badly, like
Speaker 1: this poor person who posted the photo, you would not
Speaker 1: want to set foot back in there. You'd want to
Speaker 1: just go somewhere else to get them to fix it.
Speaker 1: This happened to Dale. He came home once and his
Speaker 1: haircut looked atrocious. They'd shaved it all weirdly at the back,
Speaker 1: and I said to him, this looks terrible, and he
Speaker 1: just thought I was being picky because he went to
Speaker 1: this really cheap hairdresser. And then it actually took someone
Speaker 1: at work saying mate, did you cut your own hair
Speaker 1: for him to go back. They fixed everything up, but
Speaker 1: still he looked terrible for a couple of weeks. For guys,
Speaker 1: I don't really see the back of their head doing that.
Speaker 1: They're not looking. So there's hilarious TikTok. This woman saying
Speaker 1: things that weren't her business. And she said, the back
Speaker 1: of her hair is not her business. If she didn't
Speaker 1: straighten it properly. That's not her business. Do you remember
Speaker 1: when we first got our hair dyet and I had
Speaker 1: that mishap where I think they put the heat on
Speaker 1: for too long and it went all checkerboard. I need
Speaker 1: to note this was BEFO. When our hairdresser, our much
Speaker 1: beloved hairdresser, was away, we went to one of those
Speaker 1: cheap places. It was as attack. Yeah, that should have
Speaker 1: been the red flag, but that was a nightmare because
Speaker 1: my mum complained because I think I was thirteen. I
Speaker 1: had to redo it, jacking eleven thousand dollars worth of
Speaker 1: damage for that checkerboard. Oh streets. I would have liked
Speaker 1: that because I had to redye my hair my natural
Speaker 1: color again. It just looked awful. A telltale sign that
Speaker 1: someone's a bad hairdresser is if they've got bad hair themselves.
Speaker 1: I've advocated for so long for women to use their voice,
Speaker 1: and then I was silent.
Speaker 2: Were you silent or were you silenced?
Speaker 1: Speculation is mounting that Megan Markle is set to return
Speaker 1: to Instagram. The Duchess of Sussex was forced to shut
Speaker 1: down her personal social media accounts five years ago when
Speaker 1: she married Prince Worry The discovery of Meghan's apparent secret
Speaker 1: Instagram account follows rumors that the former actress is exploring
Speaker 1: new career opportunities as an influencer Amy can you tell
Speaker 1: us more? Well? An Instagram account with the handle Meghan
Speaker 1: has attracted tens of thousands of followers overnight, despite not
Speaker 1: having a single post now. The account's profile picture is
Speaker 1: of flowers and it is set to public now. Other
Speaker 1: than sharing Meghan's name, there is no other identifying features
Speaker 1: that it is actually her account. But despite this, many
Speaker 1: people are certain that it's Meghan's personal Instagram account, so
Speaker 1: much so that at the time of recording, the account
Speaker 1: has attracted over forty five thousand followers. How did she
Speaker 1: get the name just Megan? Surely that name would have
Speaker 1: been taken by somebody. Maybe she's purchased it, and that's
Speaker 1: why people are certain that it's Also what if she
Speaker 1: maybe not just shut down her original one, but not
Speaker 1: deleted it and then reactivated it. It wasn't Megan. She
Speaker 1: can't really come back as Meghan Markele while everyone knows
Speaker 1: her as Meghan Markle. It's the same with Kate Middleton.
Speaker 1: They actually no longer have those names. When she married
Speaker 1: Prince Harry. Normally what happens is if you marry into
Speaker 1: the royal family, you drop your last name. You're literally
Speaker 1: just known as your Christian name. Yeah, I get that,
Speaker 1: but I'm saying that she had so many followers on
Speaker 1: her original Instagram account that did she just did? Why
Speaker 1: did she just deactivate it then come back and just
Speaker 1: change the handle. She's not going to have any issues
Speaker 1: with attracting new followers at all. We can see these
Speaker 1: blank accounts got forty five thousand. It's quite interesting though,
Speaker 1: because I think this whole Meghan thing is a big
Speaker 1: part of her rebrand because she's copped so much flak
Speaker 1: for holding on to her title of the Duchess of Sussex,
Speaker 1: and on her podcast she always signed off as Meghan.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, I know in the actual show
Speaker 1: notes and at the end when they were reading the credits,
Speaker 1: it would say the Duchess of Sussex. But I think
Speaker 1: she's really trying to make just Meghan a thing, because
Speaker 1: trying to make Meghan happen. Yeah, because Prince Harry, he's
Speaker 1: just known as Prince Harry, and so she just has
Speaker 1: to be just Meghan. And it's pretty ballsy to go with,
Speaker 1: because Meghan isn't like an unusual name. It's not like share.
Speaker 1: There's not just one Meghan. You've got Meghan trainer, you know.
Speaker 1: So I wonder if Megan is going to try and
Speaker 1: trademark Meghan like Kylie Jenna did during when she did it,
Speaker 1: and then Kylie Minogue was like, hang on a second,
Speaker 1: I'm Kylie. Yeah. It's actually believed that this account was
Speaker 1: created a year ago, even though it's just attracting attention now,
Speaker 1: and that was around the time that Meghan launched her
Speaker 1: Spotify podcast Archetypes, and in an interview with The Cut
Speaker 1: to promote the podcast, Meghan said, do you want to
Speaker 1: know a secret? I'm getting back on Instagram. However, she
Speaker 1: is said to have changed her mind shortly before she
Speaker 1: launched the podcast, so this account has potentially just been
Speaker 1: sitting there. Do you think she's changing her mind again,
Speaker 1: because there is a lot of speculation that she's in
Speaker 1: talks with Cartier to become a brand ambassador after signing
Speaker 1: with Hollywood talent agency WMEE. She's always been big on
Speaker 1: social media. Before she married into the royal family, she
Speaker 1: had her blog The Tig I feel like it would
Speaker 1: just be natural for her to fall back into having
Speaker 1: a social media career. It's a little bit more complicated
Speaker 1: now though, with the whole Royal family thing, because apparently
Speaker 1: Cartier are a little bit nervous because if they partner
Speaker 1: with Meghan, they're going to piss off the Royal family,
Speaker 1: who have been clients for over one hundred years. I
Speaker 1: get why she can't be an influencer. I love her.
Speaker 1: I want to see what she's up to. I want
Speaker 1: to see what brand deals she's choosing. I want to
Speaker 1: see what makeup she's using, what skincare products are using.
Speaker 1: But when you say influencer as well, it's not like
Speaker 1: she's going to be spooking teeth, whitening or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Though I know Fergie copped it at the time when
Speaker 1: she went to the US and she was doing a
Speaker 1: lot of brand deals. But I think Meghan's team are
Speaker 1: going to be very careful about what products she promotes.
Speaker 1: They'll be high end brands and it won't be consistently
Speaker 1: every week she's spreaking something. It's not that she's an influencer,
Speaker 1: it's just that she's a celebrity. And now the way
Speaker 1: that celebrities do brand deals has changed Jennifer Aniston. Jennifer
Speaker 1: Aniston's actually been doing quite a few brand deals, but
Speaker 1: in a classy way. She cops a little bit for
Speaker 1: having no idea about social media etiquette. The thing with Megan,
Speaker 1: she's always been a massive style icon, so she could
Speaker 1: easily be a fashion influencer quote unquote, I mean, you
Speaker 1: see Jade, tun't she getting to promote designer brands? Surely
Speaker 1: Megan could easily earn a lot of money promoting Louis Vuitton, Katier,
Speaker 1: all of those brands and do it in a taste
Speaker 1: away by posting really high fashion image. I just don't get.
Speaker 1: I don't get people's point of saying, oh, because she
Speaker 1: was a royal, she can't have an Instagram account just
Speaker 1: because in the past, Like, yeah, Princess Darna didn't have
Speaker 1: one because it wasn't around. I bet you she would
Speaker 1: have jumped on there as soon as she left the
Speaker 1: role fan. But the thing is, I think because they've
Speaker 1: over exposed themselves so much with their doco and their
Speaker 1: podcasts and all the things that come out in the media,
Speaker 1: they have to be careful about how much of their life. Again,
Speaker 1: they're just a regular celebrity in the sense of a
Speaker 1: lot of the time celebrities get oversaturated. Look at the Kardashians. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's a group of people who are always gonna
Speaker 1: hate you, always gonna love it. How to influencer, People think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: she's just gonna be like the influence of vologging her life. No, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what she's gonna be. It's gonna be a
Speaker 1: different caliber of influence. Even though apparently they have shared
Speaker 1: too much, according to the critics, people are interested the
Speaker 1: fact that there's an account called Meghan that's only got
Speaker 1: a photo of flowers up and like fifty four thousand
Speaker 1: people or whatever have followed her. It shows us huge
Speaker 1: interest in her. I also personally haven't heard from Meghan
Speaker 1: in a while. I've seen a lot of Harry, and
Speaker 1: I think that that's been a really clever strategic move
Speaker 1: because years ago it was it's all Megan's fault. But
Speaker 1: now Harry has, you know, everyone saying his book is
Speaker 1: called where and like making fun of him, which is horrible.
Speaker 1: But at the same time everyone's thinking, oh, actually is
Speaker 1: him who's complaining about her? She's doing what Any sort
Speaker 1: of influence or a celebrity does when they get oversaturated.
Speaker 1: She she's doing a Taylor swift. She's gone quiet, and
Speaker 1: I do think we will see her return to Instagram
Speaker 1: and sort of do a Kate Middleton in a way
Speaker 1: and be silent but very stylish.
Speaker 2: And I value my energy. I value present time with
Speaker 2: my kids, I value going to the gym. I value
Speaker 2: my sleep.
Speaker 1: Ash Bienes has divided opinions during a Q and A
Speaker 1: on her podcast Glow and Grow Influence. It was asked
Speaker 1: by a listener if she would stay in her marriage
Speaker 1: if her partner cheated on her. This was Ash's response.
Speaker 2: I would take some responsibility into as to why he cheated,
Speaker 2: Like I feel like people cheat when their needs aren't
Speaker 2: getting met over a long period of time and is
Speaker 2: lack of communications. I would take some responsibility, but I
Speaker 2: feel like if I stayed, I would throw it back
Speaker 2: in his face and I'm like heated or triggered and
Speaker 2: they wouldn't be that trust there, so his life, I
Speaker 2: don't feel like we'd be living our best, happiest lives.
Speaker 1: It'd be hard to build up that trust again, to
Speaker 1: fully trust them.
Speaker 2: And open yourself up again to be hurt. So I
Speaker 2: don't think so.
Speaker 1: Oh, this is pretty funny. Poo in public?
Speaker 2: What do you mean in a public toilet or just
Speaker 2: in public?
Speaker 1: So what do you guys think about Ash's comments? Do
Speaker 1: you think it's your fault if someone cheats on you?
Speaker 1: I was pretty shocked when I heard Ashy say this,
Speaker 1: and I do not agree. I think that the person
Speaker 1: who cheats is solely responsible for their behavior, not the partner.
Speaker 1: And I think that there are a lot of things
Speaker 1: that you can do if you're not happy relationship before cheating,
Speaker 1: Like why don't you go to counseling, set some boundaries,
Speaker 1: talk to your part I do get all that, And
Speaker 1: hearing that quote back, you go, oh, wow, she's really
Speaker 1: victim blaming the person who's been cheated on. But I
Speaker 1: kind of understand where she's coming from in terms of
Speaker 1: sometimes there are cases where someone just goes out and
Speaker 1: cheats because they're a bloody dickhead. But then there are
Speaker 1: sometimes cases where maybe people have been in a marriage
Speaker 1: for thirty years and they're just not meeting each other's needs.
Speaker 1: They might not be giving that person enough love or attention,
Speaker 1: and so sometimes people go and seek out these emotional
Speaker 1: affairs and it's not saying that it's that person's fault,
Speaker 1: but it's clearly this breakdown of people. Actually, yes, but
Speaker 1: the thing relations is cheating actually hurts someone, Whereas if
Speaker 1: you're upfront and communicate that you're not happy on your
Speaker 1: marriage and your needs aren't being met, then you can
Speaker 1: work through that without going and cheating on the person.
Speaker 1: I do think Ash's response is quite a female one,
Speaker 1: because often female's default response is what did I do wrong?
Speaker 1: And how can I make him love me again and
Speaker 1: stop cheating? And it's total bullshit. Women should not be
Speaker 1: taking responsibility if their partner cheats on that, but a
Speaker 1: man as well. But what about the other scenarios. So
Speaker 1: say there's a woman and you know, or even a
Speaker 1: same sex relationship, what if their partners not providing all
Speaker 1: the things that they need. I mean, my view is
Speaker 1: that if you're not happy in a relationship, you should
Speaker 1: just leave the relations Actually, you shouldn't cheat on somebody.
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think that
Speaker 1: there should be any scenario where your default is, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not getting enough from this relationship, so I'm just
Speaker 1: going to cheat on this person. Like surely you can
Speaker 1: just separate. Surely you can break up before you get
Speaker 1: to that point where you want to explore a relationship
Speaker 1: with someone else. I do agree that people need to
Speaker 1: actually put effort into their relationships because I think what
Speaker 1: you're getting at is that, you know, as soon as
Speaker 1: people get married, maybe they don't go out on dates,
Speaker 1: maybe they stop communicating. Lives get really busy, and people
Speaker 1: might not put the same effort in as they did
Speaker 1: when they first started dating. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: where you need to be really good with communicating with
Speaker 1: your partner that, hey, this is what I want from
Speaker 1: our relationship and I'm not getting it on cheat on someone?
Speaker 1: Do you think though, that you could get over somebody
Speaker 1: cheating on you? Or is that just the end of relationship?
Speaker 1: It's very circumstantial. I mean my instant reaction is no.
Speaker 1: But in the past, have I taken someone back that
Speaker 1: has cheated on me? Yes? And it was an extremely young,
Speaker 1: toxic relationship where I was in the mindset like, oh,
Speaker 1: what did I do wrong and how can I make
Speaker 1: this person like me? But obviously that relationship was not
Speaker 1: successful and I shouldn't have taken in back. What about
Speaker 1: emotional versus physical cheating because I feel like a lot
Speaker 1: of people have differing opinions on it. Would you rather
Speaker 1: find out that your partner was having an emotional or
Speaker 1: physical effort? Again, I think it's very circumstantial and like
Speaker 1: where you are in your relationship, like we were talking about,
Speaker 1: if you're not putting effort into your relationship, you're not
Speaker 1: actually spending time together or communicating. You could kind of,
Speaker 1: in a sense understand why someone would feel the need
Speaker 1: to get an emotional connection with someone else. Again, you
Speaker 1: would hope that person would actually bring it up with
Speaker 1: you before they got to that stage. I think the
Speaker 1: emotional affairs are often more dangerous because for men, if
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about heterosetrical relationships, I feel like for men,
Speaker 1: sometimes they can just go out and sex isn't a
Speaker 1: huge thing for them. Obviously it is when they've got
Speaker 1: a partner, but sometimes it's actually more of a threat
Speaker 1: to your relationship the emotional side of things, Like if
Speaker 1: someone's having an emotional affair with somebody at work, I
Speaker 1: would actually find that more threatening almost well, I mean,
Speaker 1: it just depends what you're willing to accept. I mean, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you would accept your partner physically
Speaker 1: cheating or not either. So I would if anyone cheated
Speaker 1: on me, I would dump them immediately. I suppose it's like,
Speaker 1: what would you find worse the emotional or physical cheating question.
Speaker 1: It's hard because I think your initial reaction is that
Speaker 1: you would find the physical cheating worse because it would
Speaker 1: be awful to think about your partner doing that with
Speaker 1: someone else. But then again, I suppose from a deeper level,
Speaker 1: it would be kind of offensive to know that your
Speaker 1: partner had built this emotional relationship with someone that was
Speaker 1: deep and they were It kind of seems like the
Speaker 1: emotional affair is more based on the fact that they
Speaker 1: found someone that they're more suited to, whereas a fear
Speaker 1: physical affair seems like it was spare of the moment
Speaker 1: and it was just sexual attraction. Well, I think that's
Speaker 1: all we've got time for today. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for listening to another episode of Outspoken. This podcast was
Speaker 1: recorded on the traditional land of the Ghana people of
Speaker 1: the Adelaide Planes. We pay respect to elders past and present,
Speaker 1: and if you do like the podcast, please leave us
Speaker 1: a review.