He continues to pursue Jo over several episodes after she tells him no repeatedly and angrily makes it clear she isn't interested. And all of this is played for laughs. But wouldn't in real life, especially in a more modern context, Roy's behavior be rightfully considered stalking and harassment? I mean, didn't Jo when you get right down to it, have a justifiable cause to file a restraining order against Roy?

WFcjXMgFJAE

This is off topic, but what blows my mind is that Roy was played by Loren Lester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Lester), who would go on to portray Dick Grayson/Robin on Batman: The Animated Series.

Different era.

Different era.

Exactly. This was 1982. No one would have batted an eye.

If sexual harassment had been around in the 80s , then yes, Roy should have been barred from the Eastland campus . ( plus he couldn't be allowed within 100 feet of Jo )

If sexual harassment had been around in the 80s , then yes, Roy should have been barred from the Eastland campus . ( plus he couldn't be allowed within 100 feet of Jo )

Sexual harrassment was around in the 80s. See the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

For today's audience he would be creepy (but he was creepy even back then :lol:)

For today's audience he would be creepy (but he was creepy even back then :lol:)
Yes...so true!!

In a modern context, Roy would almost certainly be hit with a restraining order and lose his job at the bakery. His character is a prime example of the "persistent suitor" trope from 1980s sitcoms that has aged incredibly poorly.

Here is a breakdown of why Roy’s behavior was problematic, even by the standards of the time:

The "Stalking as Romance" Trope
In the Season 3 episode "Front Page", Roy's introduction sets the tone. He is significantly older than Jo (who is 15 or 16), yet he relentlessly pursues her. By today’s standards, this isn't "charming persistence"—it is harassment of a minor.

Ignoring Consent: Jo's "no" was frequent, loud, and angry. In the '80s, writers often used this as a "tsundere" dynamic, implying that the girl secretly liked the attention but was playing hard to get.

The Power Imbalance: Roy was an adult with a vehicle and a job, while Jo was a student restricted to a campus. His ability to show up at her school uninvited would be flagged by Campus Security today as a major safety breach.

The "Played for Laughs" Shield
The show used laugh tracks to tell the audience that Roy’s behavior was "cute." This served to gaslight the character of Jo, making her justifiable anger look like "feistiness."

The "Core Four" Reaction: Often, the other girls (especially Blair) would tease Jo about Roy rather than supporting her boundaries, which further normalized the harassment.

Mrs. Garrett’s Role: Even Mrs. Garrett, the moral compass of the show, rarely stepped in to bar him from the kitchen, prioritizing "politeness" over Jo's clear discomfort.

Restraining Order Potential
Under modern Stalking Laws, Roy’s repeated uninvited appearances at Jo’s place of residence and work (the school/shop) after being told to stay away would constitute "a course of conduct" intended to cause emotional distress. Jo would have had every right to involve the Peekskill Police Department.
It is a jarring contrast to the "progressive" themes of the show (like Natalie's body positivity) to see such a blatant disregard for personal boundaries in the Jo/Roy arc.

Do you think the writers used Roy as a "placeholder" because they weren't sure how to write a healthy romantic interest for a "tough girl" like Jo?