Why has Take Me Out never done a special with the roles reversed?

DoYouEvenLift

From what I can see, none of the Irish, British or Americans who've done the show have tried it with the men being behind the lights.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Electricity bill would be too high. They'd never turn them off.

AnonoBoy

They tried it.

Filled the studio with the sort of desperate eejits who'd go on a sh*t show like that.

They had to stop after 48 hours - not one of the f*ckers would turn off their lights.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Because that would be sexist op.
Can you imagine the outcry of men turned off the lights cause a girl wasn't attractive enough?

K4t

Because they can't find enough men with that little self respect.

DoYouEvenLift

AnonoBoy wrote: »

They tried it.

Filled the studio with the sort of desperate eejits who'd go on a sh*t show like that.

They had to stop after 48 hours - not one of the f*ckers would turn off their lights.

I don't think anyone going on the show is actually desperate though, I'd say most people have the cop on to know it's just a laugh and don't go on expecting to meet their Romeo or Juliet

Custardpi

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I don't think anyone going on the show is actually desperate though, I'd say most people have the cop on to know it's just a laugh and don't go on expecting to meet their Romeo or Juliet

Considering how Romeo & Juliet's relationship actually turned out

i.e. they both died

I'd imagine most people going on such a game show would indeed look for something different.

H3llR4iser

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Because that would be sexist op.
Can you imagine the outcry of men turned off the lights cause a girl wasn't attractive enough?

I'd say that is what would happen. Short, chubby not-so-attractive guy comes out, all the girls turn the lights off, though luck mate. Enter next one.

Similarly chubby, not-so-pretty girl walks out, every man turns his light off - sexist pigs who can't appreciate a woman's "true beauty", push them into eating disorders, knock their confidence and whatnot.

It's silly, but it's the reality.

DoYouEvenLift

Custardpi wrote: »

Considering how Romeo & Juliet's relationship actually turned out

i.e. they both died

I'd imagine most people going on such a game show would indeed look for something different.

You're some laugh.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I'd say that is what would happen. Short, chubby not-so-attractive guy comes out, all the girls turn the lights off, though luck mate. Enter next one.

Similarly chubby, not-so-pretty girl walks out, every man turns his light off - sexist pigs who can't appreciate a woman's "true beauty", push them into eating disorders, knock their confidence and whatnot.

It's silly, but it's the reality.

But anyone stupid enough to seriously come to that conclusion would just be greeted with the countless brutal, but hilarious, rejections some guys on the show have went through.

The Peanut

Take Me In?

Contestants compete to win a homeless person.

strobe

Because a show in which 15 men stood around making snide comments about a woman's appearance would bring down the nations telecommunications system with the volume of complaints that would fly in simultaneously. The audience for shows of this sort are predominantly female, by quite a long way. It'd be more to trouble than it was worth basically. Yes hypocrisy and sexism and things like that abound, meh...

Birneybau

Because it would be sexist.

































*Throws cats amongst pigeons, walks away smiling.

H3llR4iser

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

But anyone stupid enough to seriously come to that conclusion would just be greeted with the countless brutal, but hilarious, rejections some guys on the show have went through.

But you know there's no reasoning with that kind of crowd. In their heads, a man has to "man up" and take rejection with a stern smile. A woman, oh my, how dare you reject her?

Mind you, it's not the worst scenario: imagine if the lights stayed on, only to disappear as soon as it was revealed the girl in question had a kid. Brilliant recipe for a sh1testorm in a box

Adamantium

strobe wrote: »

Because a show in which 15 men stood around making snide comments about a woman's appearance would bring down the nations telecommunications system with the volume of complaints that would fly in simultaneously. The audience for shows of this sort are predominantly female, by quite a long way. It'd be more to trouble than it was worth basically. Yes there's hypocrisy and sexist and things like that which inform the decision, meh...

But would the broadcaster care if it was a roaring success? A whole new untested niche blown open. You never know until you try!

The Diabolical Monocle

Good illustration OP.
A large section of the population are in denial as to how gender works in human society.
Typically these individuals are feminists or manginas, and are offended by reality and facts. Since reality doesn't bend to anyones preferred agenda - least of all the sexually politically correct agenda, we will be hearing cherry picked, convenient cries of unfairness til the day we die.

Adamantium

This is off topic but in the same area, but about 10 years there was 1 season of the Dutch version of the Survivor TV show where an accidental experiment took place between the women and men, the results were hilarious.

It's pulled from an article:

"Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor with my feminist roommate. That particular series of Dutch Survivor would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. The feminist roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women - free from the evils of Patriarchy – would be like.

And it did. Oh it did.

Here is what happened: Initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Watching this with my feminist roommate was wonderful.Initially she tried to rationalize the differences, but her arguments became weaker and weaker. Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women. ‘Where is your hut?’,they asked. ‘We have no hut’ ‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed ‘We ate all the rice’.

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe.

The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available.They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what Patriarchy is. My former roommate is no longer a feminist."

Wibbs

Which is grand A, however the sub group of notice boxes that would sign up for such a show in the first place is going to contain more flakes and whiners(and this usually goes double for the women contestants for some reason).

the evasion_kid

Adamantium wrote: »

This is off topic but in the same area, but about 10 years there was 1 season of the Dutch version of the Survivor TV show where an accidental experiment took place between the women and men, the results were hilarious.

It's pulled from an article:

Like that "rat number 3" experiment

steddyeddy

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Because that would be sexist op.
Can you imagine the outcry of men turned off the lights cause a girl wasn't attractive enough?

Yea I can easily but it needs to happen.

jimgoose

Adamantium wrote: »

...It's pulled from an article:

And that, kids, is what grown-up life is like, in highly-concentrated and scientifically observable form. :pac:

Generic Dreadhead

Different coloured lights for how far you're willing to go with them maybe?

endacl

Because it's already as cr4p as a show can be. And even TV3 would be too embarrassed to make it more cr4p.

Actually, now that I think of it, TV3.....


.... yeah. They could.

errlloyd

I had an acquaintance (we later became friends) anyway, I googled him one day to find his Facebook and bang take me out popped up. He lost 28 lights in the first 30 seconds, then tried to sing and lost the other two. Never looked at him the same.

Dr Turk Turkelton

endacl wrote: »

Because it's already as cr4p as a show can be. And even TV3 would be too embarrassed to make it more cr4p.

Actually, now that I think of it, TV3.....


.... yeah. They could.

Haha they will have two specials coming up-one with members of the traveling community and the other with nicknamed villains presented by Paul Williams!

DoYouEvenLift

errlloyd wrote: »

I had an acquaintance (we later became friends) anyway, I googled him one day to find his Facebook and bang take me out popped up. He lost 28 lights in the first 30 seconds, then tried to sing and lost the other two. Never looked at him the same.

Did the Facebook search bar not show his profile or something?

Pat Mustard

Adamantium wrote: »

This is off topic but in the same area, but about 10 years there was 1 season of the Dutch version of the Survivor TV show where an accidental experiment took place between the women and men, the results were hilarious.

It's pulled from an article:

I didn't watch the show but I have doubts that it represented a fair comparison of group skills of men versus women since there can only be a single winner on the contest. Because of the competitive nature of the show and the mechanism of competitors voting off other competitors, it's arguable that being productive and getting things done is a good way to get yourself seen as a threat and voted off.

These survival contests where the contestants vote each other off are like survival of the mediocre. It doesn't pay to be too productive and useful because you're too much of a threat. On the other hand, it doesn't pay to be the most useless person either because you become too much of a burden for the others to tolerate. You want to be middle of the road. Therefore a certain amount of faffing about in the sun might be sensible gameplay even if it doesn't demonstrate good primitive survival skills overall.

I'll take a stab that whoever won the contest was a scheming political animal rather than a super-competent Ray Mears type.

strobe

Adamantium wrote: »

This is off topic but in the same area, but about 10 years there was 1 season of the Dutch version of the Survivor TV show where an accidental experiment took place between the women and men, the results were hilarious.

It's pulled from an article:

Same happened in that series of the apprentice where they split the groups into men and women. The men won every challenge and the women, obviously as it's a two team thing, lost every challenge, mainly because they spent the time bitching at each other.

Now these shows are heavily edited to portray what they want to portray. Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe illustrates it well in one episode.

That said, (dear Lord, may you protect me as I venture forth) women are bitchier than men. Doesn't mean no men are bitchy or all women are bitchy, but women as a group, are bitchier than men as a group. Just is what it is.

Ten random men lumped together just will have fewer issues than ten women lumped together, generally. Partially I think due to the fact that men are more physically violent than women, and all that entails. Growing up being bitchy as a girl towards other girls is less likely to get you a box in the chops, than with lads. So lads learn quicker and better not to be bitchy.

I'm way out on a ledge here, and there's sharks below me. I'm scared.

Aidric

Was hungover on the couch Saturday and lacking in the brain capacity for challenging television. Stumbled upon this show and struggled to pick my jaw off the floor after about 10 mins of it.

Winning Streak was always the lowest of low bars for me when it came to light entertainment but this show surpassed it with some to spare.

Paddy McGuinness did some credible work in Phoenix Nights but he can't be forgiven for this.