Spoiled Rich Kids on MTV show "My Sweet 16"

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-05-15 01:56am

you know shit like this just makes me whant to join the police, and become the Petrovitch/Colombo/Brisco to all those haughty spoiled brats....

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-05-15 09:11am

Durandal wrote:I can't even remember my 16th birthday. I might have gotten some RAM or something.

I thought it was a Hooker..

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-05-15 09:19am

Durandal wrote:I can't even remember my 16th birthday. I might have gotten some RAM or something.

I can't remember mine, either. And I'm only seventeen

.

Damn spoiled rich kids.

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2006-05-15 09:33am

I prefer the way my dad's family does birthday parties.

Myself, and two of my cousins have birthdays in may, so we just pick a date somewhere in the middle, and celebrate them all at once.
We actually just did it this saturday.
It's great, The whole family comes over, we eat about fifty thousand pounds of hamburger, and I argue with my conservative uncle about military tactics in Iraq.

Who says you need to spend $45,000 to have a fun birthday?

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » 2006-05-15 10:18pm

Darksider wrote:Who says you need to spend $45,000 to have a fun birthday?

Apparently the parents of these spoiled brats.

*sigh* Seeing this kind of stuff is what gives me the idea there ought to be a license for parenting.

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2006-05-17 05:52pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:What the fuck are you doing even watching MTV? There's nothing worthwhile on that channel anymore.

Exactly! I hate everything MTV. Nowadays, MTV seems to perpetuate the idea that all girls, if they want to be popular, need to be the dumb blonde. It's absolutely sickening.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-05-17 10:25pm

Count Dooku wrote:Exactly! I hate everything MTV. Nowadays, MTV seems to perpetuate the idea that all girls, if they want to be popular, need to be the dumb blonde. It's absolutely sickening.

Does anybody actually believe that? Sometimes it seems like you can't throw a dead goat out a car window without hitting someone denouncing the doctrine that all girls need to be dumb thin large-breasted blonde airheads.

I know that there are some people stupid enough for this shit, but do a substantial percentage of people buy into this MTV-perpetuated myth?

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2006-05-18 12:20am

sketerpot wrote:
Count Dooku wrote:Exactly! I hate everything MTV. Nowadays, MTV seems to perpetuate the idea that all girls, if they want to be popular, need to be the dumb blonde. It's absolutely sickening.
Does anybody actually believe that? Sometimes it seems like you can't throw a dead goat out a car window without hitting someone denouncing the doctrine that all girls need to be dumb thin large-breasted blonde airheads.

I know that there are some people stupid enough for this shit, but do a substantial percentage of people buy into this MTV-perpetuated myth?

No, but it can be said many people live a pseudolifestyle emulating it and the rest go with the flow. After all MTV does dictate doctrine to a degree for those "popular" individuals.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2006-05-18 01:20am

Another shining example of parents who work long hours to get away from their family because its going to hell because they work all the time, and then spoil their brats because they feel guilty for not being their for 16 years of their life and anticipating not being their after... I'll pass on this show, I see enough of this at work.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-05-18 01:28am

The series is like an infomercial for class war, and should the revolution come, an episode guide will provide a handy, illustrated list of who should go up against the wall.

That would be so goddamn awesome. It gives me Soviet happy shivers. The aristocracy must be liquidated!

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2006-05-18 03:04am

If you really want to get outraged about that show, try and imagine what could be done with the money that is basically being flushed down the toilet. I mean, $200000 is a good chunk of money. Why not give it to Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross, or to an inner city school?

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-05-18 05:58am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:If you really want to get outraged about that show, try and imagine what could be done with the money that is basically being flushed down the toilet. I mean, $200000 is a good chunk of money. Why not give it to Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross, or to an inner city school?

You know, sometimes it pisses me off to hear people say stuff like that. For all you know, the parents do contribute an equal amount to "worthy causes" (or maybe they don't - it's yet another case of we don't know) If you can afford it, what the hell, throw a multi-thousand dollar party for your kid, have a good time. Who the hell are you to tell other people how to spend their money? If you're a Bill Gates or Paul McCartney or Oprah Winfrey you've got the money to splurge on a party like this and it's pocket change. As a side benefit, you keep the caterers and entertainers and other people required to put on such a gala employed which is just as worthy a cause as building homes, supporting the schools, or aiding disaster relief.

No, what I object to in these situations are two things:

1) The spoiled-brat behavior - this is not limited to the wealthy, but it's more obnoxious and egregious in the wealthy.

2) A parent going into debt for these pissing contests. It's one thing if you have the money to drop on a $20,000 sweet sixteen birthday party for your offspring, quite another if you're having to borrow money to do it.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-05-18 06:33am

Just like to remind everybody that this is not the end of civilisation, but rather "business as usual". We've always had the super-rich, we just used to call them (ironically) "nobility".

Not that it is in any way acceptable, just that it's nothing new, except (maybe) in scale and frequency.

Tragic · Post by **Tragic** » 2006-05-18 11:59am

After seeing my cousin on there, I was alittle ashamed I was related to that part of the family. But not all of them seem spoiled a few seem to be grateful.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2006-05-18 12:42pm

Broomstick wrote:You know, sometimes it pisses me off to hear people say stuff like that. For all you know, the parents do contribute an equal amount to "worthy causes" (or maybe they don't - it's yet another case of we don't know)

So if we don't know something, we should obviously assume the positive. That's cute.

If you can afford it, what the hell, throw a multi-thousand dollar party for your kid, have a good time. Who the hell are you to tell other people how to spend their money? If you're a Bill Gates or Paul McCartney or Oprah Winfrey you've got the money to splurge on a party like this and it's pocket change.

Certainly a rich person has the right do that and I wouldn't want anybody forced to give to charity, but it's a long way from that to "it's the right thing to do." Nobody needs to have a fucking Roman Triumph to celebrate anything. Also, I thought the three examples you picked were interesting, because none of those people engage in the kind of outrageous conspicuous consumption that we're talking about in this thread.

And conspicuous consumption is wrong.

As a side benefit, you keep the caterers and entertainers and other people required to put on such a gala employed which is just as worthy a cause as building homes, supporting the schools, or aiding disaster relief.

Somehow I can't believe that supporting the lavish spectacle industry is "just as worthy a cause" as building homes for the impoverished.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2006-05-18 01:50pm

I imagine that it must suck royally to have the best experience of your life happen when you're 16, because it's all downhill from there. I mean, it's granted that these kids will go to college and maybe have Dad or Mom land then a cushy job afterwards, but then what? They can only be sheltered and indulged by their parents for so long, and the real world is hard. I guess the best you could hope for is to marry a rich spouse who will continue to spoil you rotten as your parents did.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2006-05-18 02:34pm

Alferd Packer wrote:I imagine that it must suck royally to have the best experience of your life happen when you're 16, because it's all downhill from there. I mean, it's granted that these kids will go to college and maybe have Dad or Mom land then a cushy job afterwards, but then what? They can only be sheltered and indulged by their parents for so long, and the real world is hard. I guess the best you could hope for is to marry a rich spouse who will continue to spoil you rotten as your parents did.

They also stand to inherit the metaphorical shitload. Combine that with a cushy job salary and they don't need to worry about the real world like the rest of us.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-05-18 02:37pm

Alferd Packer wrote:I imagine that it must suck royally to have the best experience of your life happen when you're 16, because it's all downhill from there. I mean, it's granted that these kids will go to college and maybe have Dad or Mom land then a cushy job afterwards, but then what? They can only be sheltered and indulged by their parents for so long, and the real world is hard. I guess the best you could hope for is to marry a rich spouse who will continue to spoil you rotten as your parents did.

That's what Trust Funds are for.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-05-18 04:47pm

I agree completely with Broomstick. As far as I'm concerned, you can do with your money whatever you please, so long as you've earned it and it's legal. They earned it, what right do you have to suggest they drop an inordinate sum for a cause you think is good? Do bitch when your neighbor gets a new car instead of donate the money to some non-profit money pit like Habitat for Humanity? Would you be pissy if someone ranted about you upgrading your computer instead of donating the money to the poor? I think we should apperciate when they choose to give this money away, but it should hardly be considered the only appropriate fiscal action.

I think they need to be careful about the perceptions of their children, and again, the debt issue, but if they can afford it and maintain a proper mentality, it doesn't bother me.

Base Delta Zero · Post by **Base Delta Zero** » 2006-05-18 05:27pm

Just a little note: these guys are rather small time when it comes to absurd parties. I know of a man who gave his daughter a 12 million dollar yacht for her 16th birthday.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2006-05-18 05:38pm

Pick wrote:I agree completely with Broomstick. As far as I'm concerned, you can do with your money whatever you please, so long as you've earned it and it's legal. They earned it, what right do you have to suggest they drop an inordinate sum for a cause you think is good?

I'm not telling anybody that they have to donate to charity, let alone which charity deserves their money. I'm just saying that spending money to make your spoiled piece-of-shit kid even worse is a godawful waste of money that could have been used for something good.

And, fuck it, I'm sick of this "what right do you have?" bullshit. I can't have an opinion on the way rich assholes spend money on useless shit? I also find it highly entertaining that nobody cared about all the other people in the thread who said that it was a huge waste of money and that the people on the show were dumb assholes, but as soon as somebody says that the money could be put to better use, you jump on me.

Do bitch when your neighbor gets a new car instead of donate the money to some non-profit money pit like Habitat for Humanity? Would you be pissy if someone ranted about you upgrading your computer instead of donating the money to the poor?

My computer doesn't cost 200,000 fucking dollars, does it? Moreover, money spent on a new car or a new computer actually serves a legitimate purpose and has a concrete result. I drop $2,000 on a computer today, and then actually come back and use it tomorrow. The money that gets spent on those lavish parties disappears and the only benefit is the dubious possibility that your kid will have fond memories of it.

I think we should apperciate when they choose to give this money away, but it should hardly be considered the only appropriate fiscal action.

Oh, so throwing away $200,000 on a birthday party for princess is a "fiscal action"?

At any rate, this whole argument is a ridiculous black-and-white fantasy. I don't agree with throwing a Roman Triumph for an ungrateful teenager, therefore I'm demanding that rich people live like monks and give all their money to the poor? Bullshit. I'm trying to put conspicuous consumption in a sensible perspective.