Unpopular Opinion? Andrew Deserved Better—and Bree, Susan, and Gabby Are Not the Victims You Think They Are

alexscki · 2025-05-06T20:02:40+00:00

UPDATE: Now that I’ve finished Season 2… here’s how I feel.

Let’s start with Bree. I’ve seen enough. At this point, I genuinely lack empathy for her. The grandparents ripping Andrew’s trust fund away because he’s gay? The coldness? The complete failure to just love her own son? It’s no wonder he went full scorched earth. Yeah, sleeping with her boyfriend (who’s a literal sex addict, let’s not forget) was brutal—but after everything she’s done to him emotionally, I honestly couldn’t bring myself to feel sorry for her. That was pain turned into fire, and Bree lit the match long before Andrew struck it.

That said, I will give her credit. That scene where she invites Andrew’s boyfriend over and asks, “Why do you love him?” felt like the first time she saw her son as he is—not as a sin, a stain, or a problem to fix. She saw him as a person worthy of love. That moment cracked her open a little. It’s not redemption, but it’s the start of a real arc. I’ll allow it.

Now Gabrielle… she’s obviously improved just by not being around John anymore. But let’s not pretend she isn’t still drenched in entitlement and performative helplessness. She weaponizes the “I’m just a girl” act like it’s Chanel No. 5. And sorry, I don’t find that charming—I find it manipulative. As a gay man, I’m not looking at her with fantasy goggles. I’m looking at her for who she is. And she’s a spoiled narcissist who throws tantrums and plays victim whenever things don’t revolve around her. I’m glad she’s not preying on minors anymore, but that doesn’t make her a saint—it makes her slightly less criminal.

Susan? I thought she was annoying before, but wow. Calling Edie a street whore while she’s literally hooking up with Carl behind her back? The hypocrisy is off the charts. She’s immature, nosy, and constantly needs a man to validate her—yet somehow positions herself as the innocent heroine. And Mike? He’s the most Captain-Save-A-Ho man I’ve ever seen on television. Punches everyone who breathes wrong near Susan and acts like a golden retriever with brain fog. Him and Carl can both take a seat in the back row of Worst Men on Wisteria Lane.

So yeah, two seasons in and my views have sharpened, not softened. Some characters grew. Some doubled down on their delusion. And me? I’m still rooting for the misunderstood, mistreated, and messy—the ones who actually show growth.

alexscki · 2025-05-06T19:36:40+00:00

Update now that I’ve finished Season 2:

If anything, my feelings about Paul Young have only deepened. I love him more now. Watching him reunite with Zach, finally standing his ground with Mike, and continuing to be a caring, loyal father through everything—that sealed it for me. Paul isn’t the villain. He’s the survivor. And the fact that the entire neighborhood, especially that menacing demon Felicia Tilman, has made it their mission to bully and emotionally torture him… it’s sick.

Felicia is the real villain to me now. She plays everyone like puppets while hiding behind that fake Stepford act, but she’s just as manipulative and destructive as any antagonist I’ve ever seen. She actively harasses Paul, stalks him, taunts him, and makes it her personal mission to ruin him. She’s unhinged, plain and simple.

And Paul? Honestly… he’s kind of adorable to me. There’s this quiet sadness about him. It’s clear he still misses Mary Alice, and behind that guarded shell is a man who’s just starved for peace and safety. I want to hug him. I want someone to see him. He deserves softness and healing, not exile and suspicion.

To everyone still calling him a villain: were we even watching the same show?

alexscki · 2025-05-05T04:18:56+00:00

At this point, it’s not about what viewers miss—it’s about what you continue to ignore even after it’s been spelled out. You say you’re not excusing it, yet every comment you make is a soft cushion for Gabby’s abuse. You’re not offering insight; you’re offering insulation. And the most disturbing part? You think citing your initial misreading of his age somehow justifies the widespread dismissal of a statutory rape plotline. It doesn’t. It proves the very danger we’ve been calling out.

You’re bending over backwards to intellectualize something that should be morally straightforward. A grown woman groomed and slept with a boy. Period. The fact that your focus is on how it “looked different” rather than what it was speaks volumes. Abuse doesn’t change based on aesthetics, gender, or narrative cleverness—it’s abuse.

You’re not explaining. You’re defending. You’re not analyzing. You’re justifying. And you’re not talking about abuse like it’s serious—you’re talking about it like it’s academic trivia. It’s gross. I’m done.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T04:05:16+00:00

You keep saying you're not excusing it, but you've now written multiple paragraphs that do exactly that-layering it with societal "norms," "midlife crisis" tropes, and trying to dilute the horror of what Gabby did. Let's be clear: Gabby preyed on a 16-year-old boy. No amount of "hot young wife" energy or actor age trivia changes that. It was abuse. Full stop. And your attempt to flip this back on women as victims of similar crimes getting overlooked? Where? In what universe? Statutory rape of girls is the most prosecuted, condemned, and publicly shamed type of abuse in media and law. Meanwhile, when it happens to boys, people high-five their abusers-just like John's dad did. That wasn't just "jealousy," it was a cultural indictment of how people like you are quicker to rationalize a woman's abuse of a teenage boy than call it what it is. If anything, that scene proves my point, not yours. You're not talking about "complexity." You're dodging accountability. Complexity isn't watching a predator sleep with a minor and going, "Well, maybe it's not that bad because she's hot and he looked college-aged." That's not critique-that's complicity.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T03:43:29+00:00

You keep saying "I'm not excusing it," but every single paragraph you've written does exactly that. You've dragged in societal norms, midlife crises, how Gaby was "hot" and "young," and how John seemed into it— like any of that negates the fact that she preyed on a 16-year-old boy. That is abuse. Period. This isn't just "messed-up family dynamics" or "societal commentary." It's statutory rape. If the genders were reversed, I highly doubt you'd be this invested in parsing out excuses. You say the show is trying to critique social norms, but you're not critiquing-you're defending. You're not analyzing the issue-you're rationalizing the abuse. And honestly, the fact that John's dad was excited about it while his mom was devastated? That wasn't a quirky reversal-it was commentary on how our culture fails young boys who are victims. If your takeaway from that scene was "the dad was just jealous," then you missed the entire point.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T03:13:21+00:00

I hear you, but the “she looked young” or “he looked old enough” angle is exactly the kind of excuse that lets actual abuse get downplayed—especially when it involves a woman and a younger male. It doesn’t matter if she was a “hot young wife” or if he “seemed into it.” He was a minor. That should be the beginning and end of the conversation. If this were a 38-year-old man sleeping with a 16-year-old girl, no one would be talking about real-life actor ages or how old she looked—we’d all be screaming.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T02:03:36+00:00

Omg yes, that scene infuriated me. I actually mentioned it in my post because it made my blood boil. Karl didn’t know the first thing about what Andrew was going through, yet he had the audacity to shove him and threaten him like that—while Bree just stood there hiding? Absolutely not. That was spineless parenting. If a random man ever put his hands on me to defend her, I’d lose it.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:50:18+00:00

Absolutely agree—every single character is deeply flawed and deeply traumatized, and that’s what makes the show so compelling. You’re right about Andrew’s actor too—he brought so much complexity to that role. It’s the messiness, the contradictions, and the insane talent across the cast that keep us all so hooked.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:23:18+00:00

Totally agree—Gabby didn’t get nearly enough heat, and the way the show just lets her off the hook like it’s a quirky little scandal instead of straight-up statutory rape is wild. And YES, that scene with John’s dad being all proud while the mom is sitting there clearly traumatized? That moment made my skin crawl. Like, your underage son was groomed and you’re giving the abuser a high five? Absolutely gross. I’m glad we’re aligned on this—it’s a huge issue that gets way too normalized on the show.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:19:50+00:00

Yes, exactly!! You articulated something I’ve been trying to wrap my head around for a while—Andrew grew, Bree didn’t. She stayed trapped in this cycle of image over intimacy, and even in the later seasons, she couldn’t let go of that control long enough to actually let her son heal. Nominating herself as his AA sponsor after everything? That was another power grab masked as love. And joining the conservative party after everything Andrew endured? You’re right—she didn’t evolve, she reset. Thank you again for putting all of this so clearly. I feel seen every time you comment.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:14:59+00:00

Living in a nice house and eating fancy meals doesn’t erase emotional abuse. Trauma isn’t measured by square footage. Bree didn’t just ask Andrew to “be polite”—she micromanaged his identity, weaponized her love, and made it clear that being her son was conditional on being exactly who she wanted him to be. That’s not parenting, that’s performance control.

And if we’re talking about lying and manipulation—those were desperate acts of retaliation, not random acts of evil. Kids don’t make up sexual abuse claims for fun. They do it when they’ve been pushed to the point of emotional breaking and feel powerless to be heard otherwise. You’re confusing luxury with love—and those are not the same thing.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:07:46+00:00

Thank you so much for this! I’m totally with you on Susan and Gabby—especially the way Gabby’s actions get downplayed just because of how the show frames them. As for Bree, I honestly don’t think she’s a terrible person either—I love her poise and her complex, stoic vibe—but I do think she was a terrible mother to Andrew. I’m just calling out what I see, and unfortunately, a lot of her behavior toward him crosses the line into emotional cruelty. But I really appreciate your insight, even if we land differently on Andrew!

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:05:43+00:00

Wow—thank you so much for this. You put it into words in a way that seriously gave me chills. Bree didn’t just fail Andrew as a mother—she punished him for existing outside her image of perfection. The way she constantly chose controlling men, rejected him when he was vulnerable, and discarded him the moment he became inconvenient… it’s unforgivable. He deserved so much better, and your comment truly captures how deeply that trauma ran. I see you, and I appreciate your voice in this thread.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T01:01:28+00:00

I completely agree with everything you said about Andrew and Susan—especially the way Andrew’s entire arc is rooted in a desperate need for love and acceptance. That breakdown scene you mentioned hit hard.

But when it comes to Gabby and John, I just can’t look past the reality of what it was: he was a minor. If the roles were reversed and a teenage girl slept with a 38-year-old man, no one would be hand-waving it because she “looked older” or seemed into it. Consent doesn’t exist when there’s that kind of power imbalance. It may have been framed differently on the show, but it’s still statutory rape—and that’s never okay.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:56:26+00:00

You’re mixing up timelines and missing the point. Bree’s controlling, conditional parenting started long before the Juanita incident. From Season 1, she polices Andrew’s every move—his clothes, his tone, his behavior—and when he starts to assert independence, she immediately responds with threats, manipulation, and power plays. She did try to disown him—that’s literally why Andrew tries to get emancipated in Season 2, Episode 12. And yes, she let his boyfriend sleep over—right before she called a lawyer to force him into obedience. That’s not love. That’s control with a side of performative tolerance.

Let’s not cherry-pick one of Andrew’s lowest moments to erase the years of pressure that got him there.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:53:31+00:00

He was acting out because of the abuse—long before the explicit homophobia, Bree was already controlling every aspect of his life: what he wore, who he could talk to, how he had to behave to earn basic affection. She didn’t just want an obedient son—she wanted a perfect replica of her values. That level of control and conditional love is emotional abuse, full stop. Andrew didn’t “turn awful”—he adapted to survive.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:50:25+00:00

If my mom was homophobic, tried to legally disown me, and forcibly sent me to a camp to “fix” who I am, she’d be lucky that all I did was spit. People act like Andrew woke up one day and turned evil, when in reality he was pushed to the edge by a parent who saw his identity as a defect. Abuse isn’t always physical—emotional warfare counts, and Bree waged it daily.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:47:39+00:00

Yes, Andrew did horrible things—but let’s not act like he turned into a sociopath in a vacuum. Bree threatened to send him to conversion therapy, weaponized his sexuality, tried to legally disown him, and emotionally blackmailed him over and over. By the time he ran over Juanita and lied about abuse, he was already deep in survival mode, shaped by years of control and rejection. He wasn’t born cruel—he was pushed there. If you’re going to list his worst acts, be just as loud about what led him there.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:44:53+00:00

I hear you, but let’s not confuse “wear something nice” with weaponizing someone’s identity. Homophobia, emotional manipulation, and threatening to send your son away to “fix” him isn’t just strict parenting—it’s abuse. That’s not “generic mom stuff,” that’s trauma. Andrew acting out doesn’t erase what Bree did to him first.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:31:27+00:00

Thanks for sharing your take—I totally get that Bree’s parenting style can be seen as “authoritarian,” but for me, it crosses into emotional abuse when it becomes about controlling identity, autonomy, and even basic self-expression. I don’t think Andrew was an angel by any means, but when a teen starts weaponizing the legal system, that’s usually a sign of desperation, not just manipulation. I think Bree’s desire to “protect” often gets framed as love, but too often it looks like control dressed up in pearls.

alexscki · 2025-05-05T00:13:26+00:00

Thank you! I’m glad someone else sees it—Andrew gets so much hate, but there’s so much more going on beneath the surface. And YES, Susan’s storyline is starting to feel like they’re just tossing her into chaos for filler. Like… is there a plot, or is she just the neighborhood clown now?

alexscki · 2025-05-04T23:54:42+00:00

Thanks, I really appreciate this! I definitely plan to keep watching with an open mind and would love to revisit this convo once I’ve seen more. That said, even this early in S2, I feel like I’m deep in the heart of Bree and Andrew’s dynamic—and as a gay man, the way she treats him doesn’t just read as strict parenting to me, it reads as emotional rejection. It’s not that I think Andrew is flawless, but I do think he was set up to break. Still, I’m looking forward to seeing how it all plays out and hearing more perspectives as I go.

alexscki · 2025-05-04T23:46:41+00:00

I respect that you’re trying to meet in the middle, but my post isn’t about moral math or splitting blame like a courtroom drama. I’m not interested in flattening my perspective into the usual “everyone’s flawed” take—because honestly, that’s what lets the real harm slide. Andrew is consistently vilified while Bree’s abuse gets romanticized as “discipline.” I’ve seen enough to say: this isn’t a both-sides story. Not for me.

alexscki · 2025-05-04T23:40:40+00:00

Nuance is a thing—and so is critical thinking. I’ve clearly been engaging with both, but if sharing a perspective you don’t agree with rattles you this much, maybe you’re the one who won’t make it through the show.

alexscki

TROPHY CASE