Where Are They Now: Melana Scantlin of Average Joe v. Life Love

Melana Scantlin: Then on Average Joe

A little over 10 years have past, and the craze of reality TV has ramped up a bit from the days of Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, Average Joe, and the "grand Puck" of the genre, The Real World. The Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, Survivor, and too many others have turned the genre into a whack-a-doodle, oh-no-she-didn't-uh integrity-less food fight for ratings and audacious behaviors. But back a decade, some limits and slight decorum existed. A social psychology experiment, if you will.

For instance, the premise of Average Joe was to get ordinary Joes dating and marrying "up" to extraordinary looking women. It pitted former beauty queens, Melanie Scantlin and Larissa Meek, versus a trove of ordinary guys that soon faced the ideal male: those that work on pecks and their tans well and guys who usually land these inherently, socially pretty women. 

In the inaugural season, Ms. Scantlin did not use her final selection wisely: if you were comparing the successes of Adam Mesh versus Jason Peoples. On one hand, Adam did not look the part of a successful trader and owner on The Street; whereas, Jason Peoples, looked awesome, but was not particularly well off, or successful in his life, then. Melana judged, or at least, picked a book by its cover. That cover selection turned out to never fulfilled her needs.

Meanwhile, Adam later published a book on trading, and still runs a website that is about investing.  Later, he got married in 2006. His turn on the show boded well enough.

Melana Scantlin has went on to be a host of the World Series of Blackjack, and works for E!TV/Hollywoodlife.com, as I found out just today in reviewing the Emmy Awards on Youtube. (This was why I wrote this post.)

In the world of 'Reality TV' this is the normal ending. The parties never stay together. If anything, its just a stepping stone to something else for them, or the 15 minutes of Warholian fame. The show too becomes part of the recycling bin of Hollywood where it will be revamped and hurled at the next generation. The where are they now? posts, like this one, usually end here.

But I am here to provide advice and a lesson demonstrated via the wits of academia and my own logic.

Scantlin is yet to tie the knot- and she's now in her mid-30s. While not a huge problem for her - she hosts exercise shows and blurbs and looks in good health - it seems ironic that the lead, is yet to find the right one. Scantlin, who according to Florida State professor and psychologist Roy F. Baumeister and Ohio State professor in psychology and communications Brad J. Bushman, "wanted to meet and marry a man with good inner qualities (324)," but has yet to do so. In their academic book on Social Psychology and Human Nature, the professors went into further detail on Melana's quirks of choosing:

"she had eliminated every man weighing over 200 pounds. Meanwhile, one man clearly regarded himself as better looking...and this narcissistic fellow engaged in a variety of bullying and putdowns that made most regard him as a jerk, but Melana went out of her way to convince herself that he was not a jerk...she was seen lying on the floor with the narcissistic fellow with arms around each other, kissing passionately."

The attraction of two people comes down to physical, emotional (or mood), and spiritual (philosophical) aspects. It is natural to find instant attraction with the eyes - many of us are visual-first creatures. Some though go further, and adapt better to those whose outward mood or spirit is lively or in sync with theirs, despite obvious physical disparities. Lastly, philosophical mirroring or acceptance takes a while to find out. Certainly longer and more in-depth than the Reality TV time frame. Additionally, social acceptance means people have come to like you, respect you, approve of you, and include them in their groups and relationships. While rejection means other(s) exclude you and will not form a social bond with you. Again, the reality show time frame make this a cruel game of excluding based on the lowest denominator of selection: that which we see through eyes only.

So what makes a person attractive for a mate?

As the professors intone, "Melana Scantlin may someday recognize, is that the traits that make someone attractive upon first meeting are not the same traits that make for a successful relationship."

Melana Scantlin may have learned this advice. But I suspect fear or inability to adapt towards a different trek may have taken place. (I don't know her; so she may be in a committed, if unannounced, relationship.)
But if she had, I suspect she would make it public enough. It did not stop her participation a decade ago in a very public display of both her and the men that sought an opportunity to date and build something with her.

Nevertheless, what we thought then is not necessarily what we think now, and so, it should be remembered: things change and we do change with them, if just in the march of time. And not all that glitters turns into gold.

Many times, it is pretty average.

I do, Robot: Marriage, Sex and the slippery slope

I read Wonderland or Not's post on Robot Marriage and looked at a MSNBC and LiveScience article on it. To me it is an inevitability that comes with the course of our society. The slippery slope has long been greased and readily available by the ever failing partnerships many have.

I know this comment will strike a discordant note, but feminism and the infantilization of men has paved a way for poor relationships. After WWII, the rate of divorce climbed to stratospheric heights, and between bad marriages, selfishness and the broken homes, well, we might as well GO ROBOT.






The simple reasons this could work:

1. People that are unsuccessful in human relationships for a wide variety of reasons (appearance, shyness, poor interactions, poor lovers or instability.)


2. People that utilize technology in a vast array of ways to fulfill their needs (and sex is a need for many that I've stumbled upon in life.)


3. An alternative to socially unacceptable behavior ( you name them in your head...prostitution seems to be a bugaboo amongst people of faith.)


4. Robots could provide stimulation and gratification that simply isn't available from a person. (And the criteria most would have could be fulfilled via a robot.)

The rest of this is a modified comment of mine from Wonderlandornot.
When it comes down to it, we all have desires to act or choose not to act on. If there is a machine (or blow up) that provides a release and somehow satiates our desires, then it is a worthy enough path.
Artificial means are becoming the status quo in America/World society. Drugs to balance us, cosmetic operations to mold us and machines to do whatever we need them TO DO. Why would sex & companionship be ANY different?
Use Pills for sexual dysfunction.
Use Pills to "make us happy."
Use Computers to do our ‘mundane’ calculations. (Can any of you do a multi-linear regression or Laplace transform without it –in 60 seconds?)
Use all these PDAs to communicate, like, "how you your so not into him/her." How much of your current 'social interaction' now is on a keyboard or a video link? And that’s pretty impersonal, don’t you think?

DNA experiments above ALL our heads. (Clone me up, Scotty!)
We started this slippery slope with test tube babies, genetic mapping and other enhancements to our physical beings. This is just another avenue of exploration...one we've thought about for many, many years, going back to Greek Antiquity.

No, this isn’t what we should be doing - but as time marches on, these things are an inevitability… 20+ years ago, if you piddled with a computer TOO much, you were a geek, loner and a loser. Now all the “cool” people are computer savvy. Plenty of ignorant people (people you would never talk to normally) have plenty of technology in their hands that they avoided like a plague not too many years prior.

Hence, when a functional apparatus for partnership comes out, and people mock, deride or sneer at its usage (and permanent linkage to it), we will soon enough find that this ROBOT will become accepted as people eventually acknowledge it useful and wondrous nature. (And since the first users will be very comfortable with tech, it isn’t like they would be cheating on humanity that much…)

Yet, every prior generation loses something to tech.

I’ve met quite a few people that feel sex is a mundane task too. They’re usually married. So why not have it completed by something, a robot, that won’t piss you off if you suck literally and figuratively at it?

And no, I haven’t “blown up any date”......yet.

The Five B's of my female Robot:
Brains. This will be the easiest initially to satisfy. Obviously programming them with a compedium of knowledge is a cake walk. But the ability to facimilate a subtle and engaging personality will be the real trick.
Bible. Not in the traditional sense. But the do good unto others. Goes to the Isaac Asimov three laws of Robots. However, if you Robot partner "felt" abused, then shouldn't be able to abandon you?
Body. Both sexes want the penultimate in this area. Good side: they will always be in the same beautiful shape. Bad side: you won't.
Beauty. Inner beauty will be the hard part. You don't want a bore - else you'd go back to humans. Outer beauty: damn this could be made even better if the robot could morph into a variety of aesthetically-pleasing faces and skin tones.
Brawn. What's a robot if it can't do a whole lot more than you can? Like fix a futuristic car, or redo your house in a couple of weeks. These little tasks would be a snap for my robot honey.

I DO ROBOT.

Marriage: A 5-year deal, then Free Agency

This may be a controversial solution to what has become a rather interesting institution: Marriage. I firmly believe we would be best suited to sign a 5 year contract with stipulations both ways which could allow people to void a marriage after that time. Now, this smacks against all things religious and the sanctity of the forever bond. But let's face it: 50% of these life-long partnerships will wind up in a divorce court either in a backwater somewhere or maybe in front of some TV judge that has more quips than questions.
For those that are married, it very well is a workable, highly energetic, fruitful relationship. That it works so well is a testament to your work and resolve. But since the 1970's most of these unions are lost. So, why not have a stipulated time frame to work in? Much like professional sports - namely baseball - where a contract is guaranteed for a determined length. After that, the parties can reup for much longer (or shorter...) duration. Each would get certain things ( a prenump) in the initial bonding of the two souls. Kids, Career, Living arrangements, Income split and material goods would be bartered for. I think this would be good for Hollywood types, YUPPIES, DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) and any other bonding of "equals."

I confess that I have not been married; and will I likely not do that "I do." Not because I enjoy some lascivious lifestyle, but because of things are fairly cemented in my heart, and I am not given to see it going very far askew from that slope.

A marriage is supposed to be based on tremendous love of another. But under that I see four posts, which are:

1. Money. It is a fairly rare couple that does not discuss finances - as it pertains to each other and the relationship. Lack of it certainly stresses the fabric of a relationship, whether due to career advancement, unfortunate circumstances (Layoff, medical or natural forces) or bad deals made out of lack of knowledge. Money was a distant reason why my parents were unable to succeed.


2. Time. Couples have to spend time together (and apart) for well being. Each person has their comfort level as to that amount. Some lose each other if they are never around, passing in the night due to work or otherwise preoccupied. Without a rational amount of time together, I've seen some friends really lose their "loves."


3. Communication. Interrelated to Time, but seperate, is the art of communication. It is an art form; that I've never seemed to have master with a female. Whether You believe in John Gray's book or not, the ability to share rational thoughts and our feelings is the likely the most important of these poles.
4. Sex. Similar to Time, the needs (or wants) of the two people vary. People are not always compatible in bed. Generally the greater the difference in amount, variety and what have you, the worse the relationship is further along. From what I've read, each partner feels manipulated or beholden to the other's sexual desires.

I don't think we are necessarily meant to marry for life. Just the probability of meeting the best partner for us has to be fairly slim. Adaptability and fidelity to the relationship is also a very mutable situation. But the pillars to achieving a love in marriage I feel start with the above.
5 years is much longer than most can commit to a career - which is usually the 2nd most important deal any of us dive into nowadays. And how interrelated our jobs become to our marriage, it is no great wonder that marriages fail. Careers are no longer stable as baby boomers found out and Generation X and Y and whatever the new generation is called are finding and adapting too.
Women are getting married much later. (Or binomially; either 18-21 or over 31-35, due to career first orientation.) Men are no longer supreme bread winners; the time element is first to go south in a relationship. With a fast-paced world, people are even wasting time on computer relationships instead of REAL world meetings. So it is complex.

You no longer meet your wife in school alone; or a sock hop; or shortly before a war- with life or death in the balance. Even with more opportunities to meet whomever, like minded or not, I don't see it getting better. Add to that the same sex couplings and the "death do us part" is quite overblown.
Well, at least I know I'm a FREE AGENT.