Jessica's backstory from a modern day perspective

Kenny Coyote

Telly Talk Star
LV
0
 
Messages
2,672
Reaction score
1,360
Awards
2
Location
Maryland
You changed the tone and course of the thread with this post,
"That's because that's not applicable to men. Are you suggesting he'd be ashamed of being a stud? That's the male persona - it attracts women to men. Always has, always will. That's reality. Political correctness is the denial of reality. What attracts women to men is not the same thing that attracts men to women, thank God! Opposites attract. It's the way of the world. If it weren't, human beings would have gone extinct a long time ago. Male and female behavior each ensure the survival of the human race in their own distinct ways"

That was my answer to your own question. You asked why Jessica and Clayton should be hold to different standards of behavior. If you want know that and someone explains it, don't complain, say thanks. You claim to not know, hence your question, and then when you're provided with factual information you claim it can't be right. If you don't know the answer, what makes you sure that can't possibly be the correct answer?

That is your own personal opinion and it doesn't pertain to Dallas and the said storyline at all. It says all kinds of things about you, but not about Dallas! It's also a very broad and basic and black and white opinion and you forcefully dumped it into the thread. You are no longer taking about Dallas here, but informing the rest of us seemingly uneducated forum members how the world works.

I chose not to share information about my morality as it relates to sexual behavior. That is a specific choice I made, because to me, that's private. If I were to post it on a public forum, it wouldn't be private anymore. That would be a contradiction! There isn't a single place in this thread where you'll find my views in the ideal behavior for a man and the ideal behavior for a woman based on my morality.

What I provided is a very elementary look at evolutionary biology, a field that among other things, researches the distinctly different male and female sexual behaviors that ensured the survival of the human race. It's a science. The standards for male and female behavior are not identical, never have been and never will be. It's a fact. It's not my "view' any more than it's my "view' that women get regnant and men don't. It's in the nature of reality for things to be that way. If that disappoints you, that isn't my fault because I didn't invent it. It pertains to Dallas because it explains exactly why Clayton and Jessica were treated differently for similar behavior, which is what you asked about. How am I the bad guy for answering your question? You wanted to know. I decided to help. I enjoy helping people.


You cant seem to discuss Dallas objectively as a piece of fiction, a television show. It's always personal, as if you are a Ewing, only your opinions are even more bizarre than even the most fantastical and cartoonish ones of JR and any other Dallas character.

Oh, back to the personal insults. Why is making personal insults always your default mode when you run out of ideas? Do you notice I don't insult you in return? That's because it doesn't appeal to me to make personal insults. I'm not here to make personal insults. I'm here because I like discussing Dallas. There is nothing about an internet forum conversation that has ever been able to get to me to where I have lost my composure. The day that ever stops being true is the day I leave the internet for good. Discussing Dallas here is something people do for fun. If it stopped being fun to reply to a specific person, it would hardly be in my best interests to keep responding to that person.
 
Last edited:

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
1
 
Messages
7,151
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7,948
Awards
8
Member Since
July 2007
That was my answer to your own question. You asked why Jessica and Clayton should be hold to different standards of behavior. If you want know that and someone explains it, don't complain, say thanks. You claim to not know, hence your question, and then when you're provided with factual information you claim it can't be right. If you don't know the answer, what makes you sure that can't possibly be the correct answer?
Nothing in your answer was factual though. It was all your own opinion. There is no reason a man cant be ashamed of himself for being a "stud" it all would boil down to the individual about how they felt about themselves pertaining to their promiscuity. Male and female. You expressed your own sexist opinion that a promiscuous male is an admirable, desirable thing, while a promiscuous female isn't. That's something only a man could come up with. It is not a fact. It's what you think about male and female roles.
I chose not to share information about my morality as it relates to sexual behavior. That is a specific choice I made, because to me, that's private. If I were to post it on a public forum, it wouldn't be private anymore. That would be a contradiction! There isn't a single place in this thread where you'll find my views in the ideal behavior for a man and the ideal behavior for a woman based on my morality.

What I provided is a very elementary look at evolutionary biology, a field that among other things, researches the distinctly different male and female sexual behaviors that ensured the survival of the human race. It's a science. The standards for male and female behavior are not identical, never have been and never will be. It's a fact. It's not my "view' any more than it's my "view' that women get regnant and men don't. It's in the nature of reality for things to be that way. If that disappoints you, that isn't my fault because I didn't invent it. It pertains to Dallas because it explains exactly why Clayton and Jessica were treated differently for similar behavior, which is what you asked about. How am I the bad guy for answering your question? You wanted to know. I decided to help. I enjoy helping people.
You bulldozed a discussion on Dallas and made it about all the above. Which nobody was discussing. Nobody asked for an elementary look at evolutionary biology. Nobody.
Oh, back to the personal insults. Why is making personal insults always your default mode when you run out of ideas? Do you notice I don't insult you in return? That's because it doesn't appeal to me to make personal insults. I'm not here to make personal insults. I'm here because I like discussing Dallas. There is nothing about an internet forum conversation that has ever been able to get to me to where I have lost my composure. The day that ever stops being true is the day I leave the internet for good. Discussing Dallas here is something people do for fun. If it stopped being fun to reply to a specific person, it would hardly be in my best interests to keep responding to that person.
I didn't insult you. I pointed out how you take every discussion on Dallas deeply personally, so personally that the discussion ceases to be about Dallas and always ends up being paragraph after paragraph of your own personal opinions and preachy rants. And, you may not insult but you are certainly adept in the art of patronising.
 

Jabari Lamar

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
255
Reaction score
320
Awards
3
Location
Wakanda
You just don't get the point of the thread. I'm not sure why, it's not complicated, but you don't - or you won't.

It's the latter. He won't. He knows exactly what he's doing. It's all he ever does.

Every thread on the Dallas forum gets hijacked and turned into a platform for you to rail off your views on what's right and what's wrong. Conversation is smothered and it all ends up being about you and how loudly you can get your point across. When you are challenged you shift blame on to others as you clearly did in this thread. You cant seem to discuss Dallas objectively as a piece of fiction, a television show. It's always personal, as if you are a Ewing, only your opinions are even more bizarre than even the most fantastical and cartoonish ones of JR and any other Dallas character.

NAILED IT.

Seriously, he does this all the damn time, every other post is negative and argumentative. He'll even revive old posts that have been inactive for weeks just to bring up some new disagreement with something someone wrote. And even when called out by a moderator for going WAY off topic, he'll get indignant and argue that it shouldn't be a problem because the thread was dead anyway. What kind of "logic" is that? He's the reason why this board stopped being fun for me. I lurk around every few weeks just to see if he's gone. I know I could probably just block him or something but I feel like I shouldn't have to, especially now that I see I'm not the only one here whose noticed his behavior. So if the PTB on the board don't choose to reign him in or ban his ass then, well, y'all get what y'all deserve.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,553
Reaction score
20,998
Awards
14
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
That was my answer to your own question. You asked why Jessica and Clayton should be hold to different standards of behavior
I didn't read that comment as a question, and I don't think Alexis was literally asking someone to explain.
To me it looked like an exclamation of disapproval which (I guess) illustrates the modern-day perception of those old standards.
Nobody here is so optimistic to think that we could retroactively change those old views, and certainly nobody is suggesting that this storyline (or the background thereof, to put it more precisely) shouldn't have happened. If anything, it's a very juicy background story.
It's not about disagreeing with DALLAS, it's just toying with an alternative narrative if that story had been told today, or tomorrow. I don't think anyone was looking for an authoritative account of events but somehow you always need to make to sense of everything, completely ignoring the soap-y approach of DALLAS.

Kenny, the Ewings are not real. They don't have to act or think 100% realistically. It's soap opera, drama for the sake of drama. Is that really so hard to grasp?

Now, at the risk of going off-off-topic I must say I'm very intrigued by the Farlow name mix-up. I don't remember all the details but I believe that the reveal of Dusty's real mother was supposed to be a shock twist, is that correct?
A forum member (sorry, forgot your name) explained that Dusty knew all along, but did the viewers (who hadn't linked his comment to Jessica) also feel that he already knew?
Was this apparent in some way?
 

James from London

Telly Talk 20+ Years
LV
2
 
Messages
5,555
Reaction score
8,623
Awards
11
Location
Brixton
Member Since
Time immemorial
Now, at the risk of going off-off-topic I must say I'm very intrigued by the Farlow name mix-up. I don't remember all the details but I believe that the reveal of Dusty's real mother was supposed to be a shock twist, is that correct?
A forum member (sorry, forgot your name) explained that Dusty knew all along, but did the viewers (who hadn't linked his comment to Jessica) also feel that he already knew?
Was this apparent in some way?

What happened was that in Dusty's very first episode he told Sue Ellen that he had taken his mother's maiden name, Farlow, as his own when he joined the rodeo circuit, so he wouldn't be associated with the rich Wayne family who owned the Southern Cross, Wayne being his father's name. Of course, this was forgotten when Clayton Farlow became his daddy. But, as @southfork88 has cleverly pointed out, it later turned out that his real mother's maiden name really was Farlow after all -- so maybe Dusty knew all along! It makes as much sense as him pretending his mother was called Farlow. But no, we never knew about Dusty's true parentage until Clayton told us - or at least the Krebbses.
 
Last edited:

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,553
Reaction score
20,998
Awards
14
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
Of course, this was forgotten when Clayton Farlow became his daddy
That is just so funny. And I kinda like it because it's an unintentional mini-retcon that only becomes a big thing if you'd remember Dusty's throwaway name explanation which wasn't even that necessary to begin with. Unless the Waynes were so important that everybody including the Ewings knew them but then they also should have known that there was a son named Dusty (or is it Dusty as in "Dusty"?). But then again, the Colbys didn't even recognize uber-socialite Fallon Carrington.
 

James from London

Telly Talk 20+ Years
LV
2
 
Messages
5,555
Reaction score
8,623
Awards
11
Location
Brixton
Member Since
Time immemorial
Dusty's throwaway name explanation which wasn't even that necessary to begin with.

Well, from a character standpoint, specifically Sue Ellen's, it is very interesting that she thinks he's one kind of person and then he turns out to be another. You're not that far from that episode in your Capricorn Crude boxset, so I'll let you see it for yourself.

is it Dusty as in "Dusty"?

It "sure" is.
 

Jabari Lamar

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
255
Reaction score
320
Awards
3
Location
Wakanda
That is just so funny. And I kinda like it because it's an unintentional mini-retcon that only becomes a big thing if you'd remember Dusty's throwaway name explanation which wasn't even that necessary to begin with. Unless the Waynes were so important that everybody including the Ewings knew them but then they also should have known that there was a son named Dusty (or is it Dusty as in "Dusty"?).

Well, "Dusty" wasn't his real name, it was Steven. So the initial explanation works. He didn't want people to know he was Steven Wayne so he competited under the name "Dusty Farlow. I think that background was given at the time as they wanted to make him seem as a possible real alternative love interest for Sue Ellen, not just another fling. She was unlikely, at that point, to leave J.R. Ewing for a simple rodeo star, but then he turns out to be a wealthy heir himself, so that's different. She started to really see a future with him, and then he tragically "died."

My guess is that the character turned out to be more popular than expected, which lead to the decision to bring him back. And there were probably new writers who forgot about the specific details of his background up til that point (the producers should have known but, hey, mistakes happen), they just new he was Dusty Farlow so when they introduced his father they had him named Farlow too, not knowing he should have been Clayton Wayne.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,553
Reaction score
20,998
Awards
14
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
She was unlikely, at that point, to leave J.R. Ewing for a simple rodeo star,but then he turns out to be a wealthy heir himself
I wonder how that "turns out to be" looks like since it appears to be happening in one and also Dusty's first episode.
But of course there's a lot that can happen in 45 minutes. It could be a whole week in soap-time!
 

James from London

Telly Talk 20+ Years
LV
2
 
Messages
5,555
Reaction score
8,623
Awards
11
Location
Brixton
Member Since
Time immemorial
when they introduced his father they had him named Farlow too, not knowing he should have been Clayton Wayne.

Or maybe it's a bit like how Michael Jackson had surgery to make himself look less like a Jackson and then the rest of the Jacksons (allegedly) had surgery to make themselves look more like him - maybe Clayton changed his name to Farlow so everyone would know he was still Dusty's daddy.

I wonder how that "turns out to be" looks like since it appears to be happening in one and also Dusty's first episode.
But of course there's a lot that can happen in 45 minutes. It could be a whole week in soap-time!

Actually, Dusty's first episode is just one day.
 
Last edited:

Richard Channing

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
2
 
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
6,373
Awards
11
Location
Tuscany Valley
Member Since
December 21st, 2013
Another throwaway line which was later retconned was that when Sue Ellen watched the news report about Dusty's plane crash they said that his parents had arrived at the scene, or identified the body, I don't remember. But then when we later meet Clayton he is a widower and has been for years.
 

Jabari Lamar

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Messages
255
Reaction score
320
Awards
3
Location
Wakanda
I wonder how that "turns out to be" looks like since it appears to be happening in one and also Dusty's first episode.
But of course there's a lot that can happen in 45 minutes. It could be a whole week in soap-time!

It's been a long time, I don't recall all the details, even had to look up Dusty's name, as I was sure it's wasn't his real name but I don't recall ever being called anything else (same as "Punk" Anderson), just trying to make sense of the in-story explanation.


Or maybe it's a bit like how Michael Jackson had surgery to look less like a Jackson and then the rest of the Jacksons (allegedly) had surgery to make themselves look more like him -

That family's even more screwed up than the Ewings ever were.

maybe Clayton changed his name to Farlow so everyone would know he was still Dusty's daddy.

Even looking for an in-story explanation for Dusty's initial introduction to Sue Ellen, that one seems unlikely.

Sometimes we just gotta accept that writing mistakes happens on shows like this, and we can't always try to come up with a way to make it fit in continuity. Dusty's initial explanation to Sue Ellen of his background just doesn't make sense, because the show's writers at the time goofed.
 

Kenny Coyote

Telly Talk Star
LV
0
 
Messages
2,672
Reaction score
1,360
Awards
2
Location
Maryland
It's not about disagreeing with DALLAS, it's just toying with an alternative narrative if that story had been told today, or tomorrow. I don't think anyone was looking for an authoritative account of events but somehow you always need to make to sense of everything, completely ignoring the soap-y approach of DALLAS.

I did suggest a possible modern day twist to the story, that maybe if it had been modern day, Jessica would have had an abortion. Or maybe they would have done the same exact thing.

I've never been told until now that trying to make sense of things might somehow be a drawback, or that I always do it. I've written in other threads how I don't question why this wealthy family chooses to live together because I look at like it's Dallas world and that's the way they do things. I've also mentioned how it's basically a given that if a man punches another man in Dallas, there won't be a lawsuit. I look at it as a world where men would consider it petty to bring the law into such a relatively minor incident. It looks to me like a world where a man is supposed to be able to handle himself and if another guy punches him he handles it on his own without needing help. It's a world where self-reliance in that aspect is valued more highly.


Kenny, the Ewings are not real. They don't have to act or think 100% realistically. It's soap opera, drama for the sake of drama. Is that really so hard to grasp?

I understand they're not real. In twelve years of posting on SoapChat I've never encountered anyone who felt the need to tell me they're not real, until now. I've stated before that I'm glad that the show didn't make its objective to be as realistic as possible because it wouldn't have been as good of a show if they'd done that. That they live in the same house is a good example of that because it gives so many more chances for the characters to interact with each other than they'd otherwise have.

Realism is one thing and believability is another. I don't think it would have even been a good idea for the show to try to be an accurate depiction of reality. They created their own world, to a degree, and it worked incredibly well. While realism wasn't important, believability is always important in a drama. Within the conditions of their world, the things they do should make sense most of the time. As human beings they're all very fallible, so sometimes they're going to do irrational things, but they try to make sense. That's crucial because otherwise, the audience can't take the characters seriously enough to care what happens to the characters and people stop watching. When enough people stop watching the show gets cancelled. Without believability you have nothing but drama for the sake of drama with no reason for what is happening and that doesn't work.

Drama is great but it should be the product of a well told story rather than drama for the sake of drama. This has always been my style of writing for the 12 years I've been on SoapChat and I've never had it questioned until this thread. I suspect it's the subject matter of this particular thread that has been the difference. It certainly isn't my intention to make people angry. Mature, rational arguments are the lifeblood of any successful forum but this thread has not been an example of that. I accept my share of the blame for not getting out of the thread when it became apparent that this was not leading to a fun, respectful, debate. Sometimes things don't work out as you intended. I thought by explaining that I was not describing my views and that I specifically chose not to share the them, as I have a policy of not discussing my private beliefs on this subject in public, would clear some things up and things would calm down. Another reason I didn't leave the thread earlier is I didn't want to be misrepresented by others as ascribing to some type of morality to which I do not. Since certain misrepresentations of my beliefs, which are nobody's business but my own, were being alleged, I explained they were not my beliefs but merely my knowledge of what I believe to be true. Having accomplished that, I'm not planning on continuing in this thread, as there are other threads I find more appealing.
 
Last edited:

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,553
Reaction score
20,998
Awards
14
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
maybe Clayton changed his name to Farlow so everyone would know he was still Dusty's daddy
And that makes him Clayton "Clayton Farlow" Wayne!
Now I wish they had renamed him as Wayne Farlow.
his parents had arrived at the scene, or identified the body, I don't remember. But then when we later meet Clayton he is a widower and has been for years.
But if Clayton was feeling a little amnesiac at the time then the conniving gold-digger who happened to be the spitting image of Dusty's mother could easily convince him of being the real thing.
Come on, Richard, that's not mysterious that's obvious.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,553
Reaction score
20,998
Awards
14
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
the spitting image of Dusty's mother could
Of course I mean his real mother. If Clayton was amnesiac enough to forget that Amy had died then he could have been amnesiac enough to forget that he was never married to the woman with the familiar face, a face that he subconsciously connected with someone he loved.
Gold-digger had only seen a picture of Clayton and Jessica, assuming that the woman in the picture was his deceased wife. So she really believed that she claimed to be person she tried to pretend to be.
I'm not terribly familiar with all the DALLAS timelines and when and how Dusty was resurrected, but even if they had found Dusty right after the crash and if he had regained consciousness, he could later confirm the news report that his parents had visited him, since he already knew that Jessica was his mother.

Clayton would get better, and gold-digger would get her piece of Southern Cross. Let's just say there was a reason why his garden looked better than Miss Ellie's.
And since Jessica, the spitting image of her look-alike, would show up anyway, everyone would still be none the wiser.
Clayton, of course, would never mention his embarrassing mistake.

However - and this is what could make the whole Farlow clan drama 100% waterproof - if Jessica would get wind of the fact that Clayton and some clown, some….some...whore pretending to be her had visited her baby's death scene (or in the hospital), now that really could have been the last straw.:cliff:

And it was all Dusty's fault because Clayton's identity crisis is what had caused his amnesia in the first place. Or maybe it was Sue Ellen's fault because she made him brag about his real name.

Oh, if only DALLAS had listened to nature.
 
Last edited:

southfork88

Telly Talk Addict
LV
0
 
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
1,263
Awards
4
Location
Italy
Member Since
2008
At the Ewing Rodeo it is simply reported that Southern Cross belongs to the Wayne, not that Steven "Dusty"'s father was named Wayne. We know the owner of the ranch was Amy, not her husband ... so Wayne could be her maiden name.
 
Last edited:

James from London

Telly Talk 20+ Years
LV
2
 
Messages
5,555
Reaction score
8,623
Awards
11
Location
Brixton
Member Since
Time immemorial
Even looking for an in-story explanation for Dusty's initial introduction to Sue Ellen, that one seems unlikely.

I was just joking!

Now I wish they had renamed him as Wayne Farlow.

Which just happens to be ... the name of the production manager who worked on Dallas for nearly its entire run:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0267705/

Dallas had previous for naming characters after its crew (Camille Marchetta begat Naldo Marchetta) so it's safe to assume this isn't a coincidence.

I’m pretty sure the Farlow/Wayne confusion detailed above was what caused David Wayne (in a premonition) and young Eric Farlow to leave the show

I always assumed Eric Farlow (aka the first Christopher) was the son or nephew of Wayne Farlow, so they're all linked together somehow.

We know the owner of the ranch was Amy, not her husband

I'm not so sure about that. Harry McSween told JR that Clayton "lived all his life in San Angelo on the Southern Cross." And Clayton talked about growing up there with his father and Jessica. It was Amy's money that saved the ranch after she died, but I don't think she ever owned it.
 
Last edited:

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
1
 
Messages
7,151
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7,948
Awards
8
Member Since
July 2007
"They were not my beliefs but merely my knowledge of what I believe to be true" has to be the funniest thing I have ever read in my life.
 
Last edited:

stevew

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
1,223
Awards
7
Location
Michigan
Member Since
Jan 2012
They were very masculine women. That's not the norm. In general, men are attracted to feminine women and women are attracted to masculine men. Does the fact that masculinity and femininity exist bother you? If you could, would you do away with both masculinity and femininity? Do you see them as negatives?



There is no link between sexual behavior and morality?

If it were just an issue over power to live one's life, you'd find at least a couple examples of female stars the magnitude of Wilt Chamberlin or Gene Simmons that brag about the number of men they've done. There are plenty of major female stars that have all the money they'll ever need to not be self-sufficient but still you won't find one willing to sacrifice her reputation by saying she's had sex with thousands of men. The don't want to ruin their careers. Most male stars don't publicly brag about the number of women they've had either, but they could if they wanted to and it wouldn't ruin their careers. These people know that what is generally considered acceptable behavior for one sex does not necessarily hold true for the other sex. They understand how the world works

Take money out of the equation and it's the same. In high school nobody has a career. Still, it works out that guys brag about having had lots of girls and girls don't brag about having had lots of guys. Girls don't want an image of having been around a lot because that's perceived as distinctly negative by both the guys and the other girls. That's not opinion; it's self-evident.

If you're interested in knowing why these things don't change a whole lot very quickly and you don't want to take anyone's word for it unless that's their field of expertise, read some books on evolutionary biology. I don't know of any offhand, but I do know that evolutionary biologists research the reasons for why the differences in male and female sexual behavior and the different standards regarding them developed. Evolution is a very slow process. Biologically, we haven't evolved much in the last 70 or 80 years.

They were far from masculine women. Babe answer to all the questions which follow your assumption is no.

You need to talk to high school kids before you make assumptions. High school girls do brag about the men they sleep with. Again it seems more a brag of quality (the attractiveness of the guy, the size of his of his member, etc.) and with guys it’s a numbers game.

Evolution takes about 10,000 years to see a physical change but we’re not taking such, we’re talking behavior and environment. In a world where women are not controlled by men you will find women very open about their sexual exploits, again quality over quality seems to be the issue. I realize you’re desperate to see the world through your conservative lens but it’s a very narrow view and full of assumptions and inaccuracies.
 
Top