NationStates Jolt Archive

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23575221/

Apparently, according to Dr. Laura, if a man cheats, it's his wife's fault, at least to some extent.

Never mind that no wife ever holds a gun to her husband's head and orders him to cheat. Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down.

No one ever claims that women who supposedly cheat can blame their husbands. It's always the wife's fault.

Well if your husband cheats, you're obviously just not doing enough to satisfy his needs. :rolleyes:

I agree with Dr. Laura.

I think the problem is in assigning 'fault.' When a person cheats, man or woman, there are contributing factors to it and they vary from person to person. I don't know that it's constructive or informative to try and slot it into 'fault' that can be distributed amongst the partners in some sort of concrete degree. It's a far more complex and personal (in that every instance has its personal factors) situation then to just find, or absolve, fault and leave it at that.

Well unless your wife ties you up and has another person rape you. It's your own fault if you're screwing anyone else.

Men are capable of not being dogs when it comes to sex.

Well unless your wife ties you up and has another person rape you. It's your own fault if you're screwing anyone else.

Men are capable of not being dogs when it comes to sex.
It's reductive to think that any instance of cheating is down to being 'dogs' or that men are the only ones to cheat.

Yes, there are people who cheat because they're assholes. But to make a definitive statement about fault in all instances of cheating is neither possible nor productive.

People cheat for different reasons, and, for example, if a man cheats on his wife, while the decision to cheat was his and his alone, the factors that played into him reaching that decision may well have had a lot to do with decisions she made as well.

I think the problem is in assigning 'fault.' When a person cheats, man or woman, there are contributing factors to it and they vary from person to person. I don't know that it's constructive or informative to try and slot it into 'fault' that can be distributed amongst the partners in some sort of concrete degree. It's a far more complex and personal (in that every instance has its personal factors) situation then to just find, or absolve, fault and leave it at that.

Speaking from experience as both the cheater and the cheatee, I find it's usually both people's fault, never one person's fault alone.

Who's fault is it when a woman cheats?
Imagine – you’re in the office eight hours a day – sometimes 12 hours during month end. Then you go play tennis or golf on the weekends or have a beer with your friends. How much time have you spent with her this last week? And when we say time, we mean quality time. When was the last time you took her out for dinner, surprised her with a nice gift or gesture, told her how much she means to you and how much more wonderful your life has become since you married her? (http://www.professorshouse.com/family/relationships/married-women-who-cheat.aspx)

Sometimes the wife in these marriages does not work and she grows lonely and bored and as they watch husbands fish, hunt, participate in other sports and in general run with the boys. They sometimes have an affair to entertain themselves.



There might be a husband who pays far little attention to an attractive wife. He many times abstains from giving her compliments or fails to satisfy her sexually. (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=32974)

Apparently, according to Dr. Laura, if a man cheats, it's his wife's fault, at least to some extent.
That doesn't mean it's not predominantly his fault, or the fault of the person with whom he cheats. Just that as a party to his state of being, how the wife behaves influences the choices of the husband. Which is fair enough, I think.

Not that I for one second think that this means that women should bear any responsibility for male infidelity. Having the affair itself is a choice the individual makes, and we're all responsible for our own choices, even if other people are sometimes responsible for making us into the sort of person that makes that choice.

What would her answer be if the man cheated on his wife with another man?

She's an idiot. Why would anybody listen to her anyway?
My neighbour told me the other day that storms are cause by trees sneezing, isn't that amazing? Do you agree with that view?

What would her answer be if the man cheated on his wife with another man?

Or better yet, what if the wife cheats? Is it the man's fault?

(since she was talking about elliot spitzer)

if a husband feels the need to spend family money on overpriced whores its the wife's fault for marrying an idiot.

Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are.

Am I the only one who noticed this statement?

There's a sayin in Texas; Men are hard dogs to keep on the porch, if you don't throw 'em a bone every once and a while, they'll wonder off.

"But, she persisted, frequently when there is infidelity in marriage, both spouses share the blame."

That seems a much fairer statement than the one in the OP.

Still, it's all about the details. If the woman insists on kicking the man in the balls after sex, it may well be her fault. Usually though, it's the cheating spouses' fault.

I guess you can blame it on the random motion of air molecules influencing your brain's impulses if you want. It probably is partly their fault.

Am I the only one who noticed this statement?

It could have been meant as "most men are scummy, as most women are too", put forth in a dodgey way.

Laura Schlessinger is an idiot.

In other news, water is wet.

If a husband feels the need to spend family money on overpriced whores its the wife's fault for marrying an idiot.

QFT.

Never mind that no wife ever holds a gun to her husband's head and orders him to cheat.

I bet one has, somewhere, once.Not seriously, but there are crazy people there, and some with strange tastes


Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are.
Thanks


No one ever claims that women who supposedly cheat can blame their husbands. It's always the wife's fault.
Where are you getting this from?

Is she still on the air? Who knew?

It's reductive to think that any instance of cheating is down to being 'dogs' or that men are the only ones to cheat.

Yes, there are people who cheat because they're assholes. But to make a definitive statement about fault in all instances of cheating is neither possible nor productive.

Well, no.

Dick into puss = dick's fault. Unless said dick has acquired some kind of psychic power. Sorry, but I'm never going to believe that the decision to: arrange to meet, and then meet with a woman who isn't your wife with the intention of boning her, undress, foreplay and then have sex -- all those individual decisions -- aren't the fault of the man making them (or reverse the genders if need be).

You either understand that you're married and that if there are problems, you work them out, and if the differences are irreconcilable, you divorce, or you act like an unneutered animal and cheat.

SOME blame can be assigned to the person who KNOWS the one they're considering screwing is married and goes through with it anyway. The point is, if everyone's not on the same page, dishonesty is afoot, and that's no bueno por nada.

Nothing can convince me that we're that devoid of self-control. If we are, we're no better than those following Shariya law who insist that rape victims made their rapists crazy by revealing an ankle. Fuck that childish, irresponsible nonsense.

Sorry for the spicy invective, but this is a pet peeve.

When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs.
Why isn't it his fault for being so high-maintenance and insecure? What man needs his wife to make his feel "like a success" or "like a hero". If you want to feel like a success, be successful!

There might be a husband who pays far little attention to an attractive wife. He many times abstains from giving her compliments or fails to satisfy her sexually.

He can't help it if he's gay.

http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

He can't help it if he's gay.

Wrong. He can help it by getting out of his fake marriage and moving to Canada to marry another man.

There's a sayin in Texas; Men are hard dogs to keep on the porch, if you don't throw 'em a bone every once and a while, they'll wonder off.

Tell that to Hera.

Wrong. He can help it by getting out of his fake marriage and moving to Canada to marry another man.

Huh? It didn't say the man was having an affair.

All I meant was that "a husband who pays far little attention to an attractive wife. [and] many times abstains from giving her compliments or fails to satisfy her sexually" is probably gay.

Huh? It didn't say the man was having an affair.

All I meant was that "a husband who pays far little attention to an attractive wife. [and] many times abstains from giving her compliments or fails to satisfy her sexually" is probably gay.
Or just self-absorbed.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23575221/

Apparently, according to Dr. Laura, if a man cheats, it's his wife's fault, at least to some extent.

Never mind that no wife ever holds a gun to her husband's head and orders him to cheat. Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down.

No one ever claims that women who supposedly cheat can blame their husbands. It's always the wife's fault.

I bet women who get raped are also at fault for wearing slutty, slutty clothes. :rolleyes:

I bet women who get raped are also at fault for wearing slutty, slutty clothes. :rolleyes:

Well, yes, of course... What other possible reason could exist for that happening?

Or just self-absorbed.
Very... not to have sex with an attractive woman who is already at hand.. I mean, even a lazy guy wouldn't have to move to far to have sex with his wife(assuming she lives in the same house).
I bet women who get raped are also at fault for wearing slutty, slutty clothes. :rolleyes:

Should have hired you as my lawyer...

What would her answer be if the man cheated on his wife with another man?

Ask Dina Matos-McGreevey.

I bet women who get raped are also at fault for wearing slutty, slutty clothes. :rolleyes:

While it makes for a pretty soundbite, such a comment is awfully dismissive about the idea that while the choice to cheat is one partner's to make, the atmosphere that leads to that choice can very well have to do with the choices made, at least in part, by the other partner.

Very... not to have sex with an attractive woman who is already at hand.. I mean, even a lazy guy wouldn't have to move to far to have sex with his wife(assuming she lives in the same house).
I know some huge nerds (I might be one of them - I'm not saying) who would rather spend the time it would take having sex to play video games instead. Tack on some masturbation and internet porn on the end and the result's even better.

I know some huge nerds (I might be one of them - I'm not saying) who would rather spend the time it would take having sex to play video games instead. Tack on some masturbation and internet porn on the end and the result's even better.

Why not have sex afterwards? Jeez.. I mean, I wouldn't know if it's any better, but...seriously?

While it makes for a pretty soundbite, such a comment is awfully dismissive about the idea that while the choice to cheat is one partner's to make, the atmosphere that leads to that choice can very well have to do with the choices made, at least in part, by the other partner.

Well, if you'd like defend him, that's your perogative. However, he did know he was married, he did know that prostitution is illegal given that he'd prosecuted and crowed about prosecuting prostitution rings before, he did spend thousands of dollars on it multiple times, he apparently didn't much consider his three daughters whom I assume did not drive their father to infidelity, and he did get caught.

Do I think the calling for his head is a bit much? Yeah. I bet half of Europe is laughing about such a tempest in a teapot being made over infidelity.

Do I think he had political enemies? Oh yes. He made a lot of people on Wall Street angry for going after their shady activities, and he abused his power by trying to sic the state police on Joe Bruno to follow him around to dig up any dirt they could.

Do I think he's an arrogant hypocrite, given his campaign was based on moral reform and cleaning up prostitution? Pretty much.

Whatever his wife could have done (or not done, as Dr. Laura has said), it's clearly HIS choices that have placed him in such a difficult position.

Huh? It didn't say the man was having an affair.

All I meant was that "a husband who pays far little attention to an attractive wife. [and] many times abstains from giving her compliments or fails to satisfy her sexually" is probably gay.

And hence should probably break off his marriage and go get a happier life for himself with a man, all the while saving even more years of bitter disappointment, frustration, and broken promises for his poor wife who really doesn't deserve to be married to a man who clearly would be better off just being a friend rather than a husband.

My point still stands.

So men are nothing more than brainless buckets of hormones that are incapable of making rational choices. Thanks for the info Dr. Laura. I'll be sure to sex my future husband every 15 min 24/7. Chafing be damned!

Dr Laura is, in general, bonkers.

I hope her husband cheats on her.

Funny thing from a little digging. Her husband was cheating on his previous wife of 20 years with her, before he left that wife and married her. I guess she's trying to justify something, and not assign blame to herself for "stealing the other woman's man"?

The only reason to listen to Dr. Laura's advice is if you'd like your life to end up like hers.

Can we get a show of hands on that?

While it makes for a pretty soundbite, such a comment is awfully dismissive about the idea that while the choice to cheat is one partner's to make, the atmosphere that leads to that choice can very well have to do with the choices made, at least in part, by the other partner.

Well, there's explaining and there's excusing.
Sure you can explain the whole situation, what factored into his decision and what didn't, what was the emotional and psychological drive behind cheating, etc.
That wouldn't excuse his decision, though. It would be interesting to know, but overall in this case a waste of time.
It would only be helpful to look at circumstances for preventing a spouse from cheating, not for placing blame afterwards.

I hope her husband cheats on her.

Funny thing from a little digging. Her husband was cheating on his previous wife of 20 years with her, before he left that wife and married her. I guess she's trying to justify something, and not assign blame to herself for "stealing the other woman's man"?
Bingo.

Like I said, if you want to live a life like Dr. Laura's, then by all means take her advice. ;)

There's a sayin in Texas; Men are hard dogs to keep on the porch, if you don't throw 'em a bone every once and a while, they'll wonder off.
In Minnesota, the joke is a bit different.

Home cooking: where many a man thinks his wife is.

No one ever claims that women who supposedly cheat can blame their husbands. It's always the wife's fault.Um, actually Dr. Laura does...

Whilst Dr Laura is clearly an idiot in this case as usual, if a wife continually physically abuses her husband (or vice versa), for example, and the partner then goes on to sleep with someone else, whose fault is it?

Whilst Dr Laura is clearly an idiot in this case as usual, if a wife continually physically abuses her husband (or vice versa), for example, and the partner then goes on to sleep with someone else, whose fault is it?His, albeit it would be justified.

His, albeit it would be justified.

How is he at fault if his actions are justified?

How is he at fault if his actions are justified?He isn't at "fault" at all, while still being the one responsible.

He isn't at "fault" at all, while still being the one responsible.

I'd have to disagree. Hurting his wife back by cheating isn't the way to go. If he sees the relationship as over, he ought to inform her of that before going of to shag someone else.

Um, actually Dr. Laura does...
Actually, Dr. Laura specifically states that men do NOT have equal responsibility for the "care and feeding" of their wives, and that it's far easier for a wife to improve her husband's mood than it is for a husband to improve his wife's.

She's been asked about this many times, since she wrote her book called, "The Proper Care & Feeding Of Husbands," but has not published “The Proper Care & Feeding Of Wives.”

She also specifically poo-poos the idea that men should be expected to do 50% of the work in a relationship (or around the house) because she assumes that such tasks are the responsibility of women. If a man is failing to pull his weight, Dr. Laura blames the woman instead, saying that she is being selfish if she asks her partner to step it up. She has also told women that when they marry they have pledged to love and cherish, which means they must cater to their man or else expect to get nothing in return (I guess because their man did not pledge to love and cherish them?).

Seriously, don't even try to pretend that Dr. Laura is egalitarian about this. She's not.

Whilst Dr Laura is clearly an idiot in this case as usual, if a wife continually physically abuses her husband (or vice versa), for example, and the partner then goes on to sleep with someone else, whose fault is it?
His fault.

The proper response if your partner abuses you is to END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If your partner neglects you and refuses to do any better, END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If your partner is not respectful of your needs, END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If you choose to cheat, it's nobody's fault but yours. You could choose to be a grown up and behave honestly and respectfully. If you choose to cheat instead, don't try to bullshit around and blame your choice on anybody else.

whose fault is it?

His, albeit it would be justified.

He isn't at "fault" at all, while still being the one responsible.

wut

Anyway, certainly, the husband is responsible for his actions. However, if we try to identify the party in the wrong here, it's pretty obvious that it's the woman (if we go with the scenario presented where the wife is abusive, of course). This is more what I'm getting at. If we're talking blame, which is more negative than responsibility, shouldn't the partner be blamed for their spouse's cheating?

How about crime? Say person Y from socially disadvantaged group X commits a crime. Person Y is fully responsible for his own actions, but doesn't society usually share blame in these situations?

Actually, Dr. Laura specifically states that men do NOT have equal responsibility for the "care and feeding" of their wives, and that it's far easier for a wife to improve her husband's mood than it is for a husband to improve his wife's.

She's been asked about this many times, since she wrote her book called, "The Proper Care & Feeding Of Husbands," but has not published “The Proper Care & Feeding Of Wives.”

She also specifically poo-poos the idea that men should be expected to do 50% of the work in a relationship (or around the house) because she assumes that such tasks are the responsibility of women. If a man is failing to pull his weight, Dr. Laura blames the woman instead, saying that she is being selfish if she asks her partner to step it up. She has also told women that when they marry they have pledged to love and cherish, which means they must cater to their man or else expect to get nothing in return (I guess because their man did not pledge to love and cherish them?).

Seriously, don't even try to pretend that Dr. Laura is egalitarian about this. She's not.


Wow, she is completely full of shit!

His fault.

The proper response if your partner abuses you is to END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If your partner neglects you and refuses to do any better, END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If your partner is not respectful of your needs, END THE RELATIONSHIP.

If you choose to cheat, it's nobody's fault but yours. You could choose to be a grown up and behave honestly and respectfully. If you choose to cheat instead, don't try to bullshit around and blame your choice on anybody else.

Well, cheating is a pretty effective way of ending a relationship. But anyhow, expecting victims of perpetual domestic violence to act honestly and respectfully to their abuser and/or just ending the relationship is a bit much IMO. If they could do the latter that easily we'd see a lot less problems.

Well, cheating is a pretty effective way of ending a relationship.

So is killing your partner. Just because it's "effective" doesn't mean it's a responsible choice.


But anyhow, expecting victims of perpetual domestic violence to act honestly and respectfully to their abuser and/or just ending the relationship is a bit much IMO. If they could do the latter that easily we'd see a lot less problems.
I don't expect that all people--abuse victims or otherwise--will always act honestly and respectfully. The fact that people frequently behave in disrespectful, dishonest, or inappropriate manners does not change the fact that their behavior is disrespectful, dishonest, or inappropriate.

Actually, Dr. Laura specifically states that men do NOT have equal responsibility for the "care and feeding" of their wives, and that it's far easier for a wife to improve her husband's mood than it is for a husband to improve his wife's.

She's been asked about this many times, since she wrote her book called, "The Proper Care & Feeding Of Husbands," but has not published “The Proper Care & Feeding Of Wives.”

She also specifically poo-poos the idea that men should be expected to do 50% of the work in a relationship (or around the house) because she assumes that such tasks are the responsibility of women. If a man is failing to pull his weight, Dr. Laura blames the woman instead, saying that she is being selfish if she asks her partner to step it up. She has also told women that when they marry they have pledged to love and cherish, which means they must cater to their man or else expect to get nothing in return (I guess because their man did not pledge to love and cherish them?).

Seriously, don't even try to pretend that Dr. Laura is egalitarian about this. She's not.I never said she didn't. However, the statement that Dr. Laura is claiming men have no blame whatsoever is also false.

Whilst Dr Laura is clearly an idiot in this case as usual, if a wife continually physically abuses her husband (or vice versa), for example, and the partner then goes on to sleep with someone else, whose fault is it?

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one. Just as I've never heard of a female politician cheating on her husband. Not once. Does Hillary screw around on Bill? Does Nancy Pelosi screw around on her husband?

If a man cheats on his "abusive" wife, he's both a cheater and a liar.

I never said she didn't. However, the statement that Dr. Laura is claiming men have no blame whatsoever is also false.
"No blame whatsoever"? Perhaps not, though I wouldn't put it past her. However, the statement, "Dr. Laura will probably blame any relationship problems on the woman first and foremost" is absolutely true. This does include infidelity.

The thing is, Dr. Laura assumes that women 1) are not as sexual as men, 2) are mushy-brained emotional ninnies who only want to have a man they can wuv, 3) are only truly happy when they are suppressing their own desires in favor of pleasing a man. In Dr. Laura World, the only women who would want to cheat are evil feminist abortion doctor lesbians who castrate male puppies in their spare time. Real Women never cheat because they are biologically programmed to want to spend their free time folding their man's socks.

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one.
Then you aren't paying attention.

Men are also victims of domestic violence. One of the biggest problems they face is attitudes like yours, which keep them from coming forward and also from getting justice when it comes to prosecuting their abusers.

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one. Just as I've never heard of a female politician cheating on her husband. Not once. Does Hillary screw around on Bill? Does Nancy Pelosi screw around on her husband?

If a man cheats on his "abusive" wife, he's both a cheater and a liar.

Utter rubbish. As Bottle says, men are abused by their female spouses in relationships, and blinkered views like your own only make it hrder for them to come out and admit it.

Oh God a feminist. Give it a rest please.

Speaking from experience as both the cheater and the cheatee, I find it's usually both people's fault, never one person's fault alone.

I agree.

Utter rubbish. As Bottle says, men are abused by their female spouses in relationships, and blinkered views like your own only make it hrder for them to come out and admit it.

^ What he said. ^

I'd have to disagree. Hurting his wife back by cheating isn't the way to go. If he sees the relationship as over, he ought to inform her of that before going of to shag someone else.

Exactly

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one. Just as I've never heard of a female politician cheating on her husband. Not once. Does Hillary screw around on Bill? Does Nancy Pelosi screw around on her husband?

If a man cheats on his "abusive" wife, he's both a cheater and a liar.




I will say there are instances of women physically abusing their husbands. Sadly when it comes to finding help these men are generally ridiculed by the system instead of helped. In most cases they are not even allowed into battered spouse shelters as there is such anger towards men among most of the people who are there.

My ex-hubby's wife not only mentally abuses him but also physically (we suspect as she has been arrested for violence in other instances). He is not "allowed" to talk to his sons, his mother, his brothers or sister. Nor is he "allowed" to go anywhere without her. There is without question a real problem going on and not much anyone can do about it. He won't get help. The stigma attached to husband abuse is very real.

Oh God a feminist. Give it a rest please.

Where would you get the idea that Dr Laura is feminist in any way? :confused:

Where would you get the idea that Dr Laura is feminist in any way? :confused:

Was aimed at OP.

"Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down."

Was aimed at OP.

"Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down."

Rrrright... how would you interpret Dr Laura's remarks, then?

Um, actually Dr. Laura does...

Historically, if a wife ever cheated on their husband (or vice-versa) the other partner was ridiculed for failing to satify the other partners needs.

Or is that just an English tradition?

Either way, that kind of idea has been around for many, many centuries.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Men are also victims of domestic violence. One of the biggest problems they face is attitudes like yours, which keep them from coming forward and also from getting justice when it comes to prosecuting their abusers.

It is the truth. I know fellow who is a government worker; one night he got a call from a man about domestic violence. He sent couple of cops over, and they found a man who had been beaten by his wife. They could not keep from laughing, and they basically told the guy that a "woman" who beats him-up is his own problem.

Well, cheating is a pretty effective way of ending a relationship. But anyhow, expecting victims of perpetual domestic violence to act honestly and respectfully to their abuser and/or just ending the relationship is a bit much IMO. If they could do the latter that easily we'd see a lot less problems.

Cheating isn't really an effective way to do anything but cheat. It doesn't effectively end the relationship for many reasons. First, if the relationship is a marriage, it opens the cheater up to the shit end of a divorce stick. Second, it's hurting someone out of spite and wrath, and those with pretentions of moral (especially religious) rectitude should leave vengeance to God. Third, it compounds whatever ended the relationship for the cheater by aggravating and widening the breach of trust. All bad ideas, and also cowardly. If you can't "person up" and end the relationship when the last straw breaks the proverbial camel's back, cheating and then attempting to justify or rationalize it while you're still nominally together knocks you off of the higher ground you had when you were being abused or neglected or even cheated on yourself. In other words, you don't rise above an asshole by becoming and asshole.

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one. Just as I've never heard of a female politician cheating on her husband. Not once. Does Hillary screw around on Bill? Does Nancy Pelosi screw around on her husband?

If a man cheats on his "abusive" wife, he's both a cheater and a liar.

I agree with the last sentence. The rest is horseshit. You haven't looked hard enough. Also "I've never heard of it" NEVER equals "does not happen", unless you're omniscient. And nobody is.

Was aimed at OP.

"Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down."

In order for us perceive your intended target without you getting shredded by Bottle (at whom I had thought your "Oh God, a feminist" comment was aimed -- which would have been a colossal mistake), you should hit the quote button.

Historically, if a wife ever cheated on their husband (or vice-versa) the other partner was ridiculed for failing to satify the other partners needs.

Or is that just an English tradition?

Either way, that kind of idea has been around for many, many centuries.

Many incredibly stupid ideas reap the benefit of longevity. That doesn't make them any less stupid.

that is a leading problem today, no one taking responsibility for their own actions. its always someone else's fault or they were drunk or high at the time.

being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not an excuse.

I haven't read the book but I did hear an interview with her on the radio and there's another point to be made: Forgiveness.

Forgiveness is NOT easy. When it's something like this, it takes time and effort to be able to truly forgive somebody. The problem is that often the wife says she forgave her husband but hasn't truly. She continues to bear resentment and that will erode a marriage. If she can't forgive him then they ought to divorce. If she can, it will be a long and difficult process. This is what people fail to understand.

I've seen it happen. Someone whom I'll call Chuck once messed up and was unfaithful. He admitted his mistake to his wife (whom I'll call Susan) IMMEDIATELY and asked her to forgive him. She seemed to forgive him very quickly and easily.

From that m oment forward, Chuck never had a single legitimate complaint in the marriage again. If he was unhappy with something, and tried to talk to Susan about it, she generally didn't care. She admitted later it was because on some level, she felt he still didn't deserve to get whatever it was he wanted in any given argument. She deligted in reminding him of how lucky he should feel that she didn't leave him, (yet often insisted that she wasn't the sort of person to rub his nose in the past).

So the truth is, she never truly forgave him nor was she willing to make the effort to try. When he encouraged her to go to co unseling to help deal with her feelings of resentment she refused, deciding that the status quo was just fine the way it was.

It's no surprise their marriage ended shortly after that revelation. (Fully 12 years after the initial unfaithfulness).

"So what's your point, Neo B?"

My point is that marital infidelity is never justifiable nor is it excusable, but it can be survived. The person who has been betrayed shouldn't have to work hard to help fix the problem but the reality is, they DO. If they want the marriage to continue, and truly want to forgive, then they must work hard as well. The onus can't be all on the one who made the error in the first place. It may seem unfair, but that's how it is.

I haven't read the book but I did hear an interview with her on the radio and there's another point to be made: Forgiveness.

Forgiveness is NOT easy. When it's something like this, it takes time and effort to be able to truly forgive somebody. The problem is that often the wife says she forgave her husband but hasn't truly. She continues to bear resentment and that will erode a marriage. If she can't forgive him then they ought to divorce. If she can, it will be a long and difficult process. This is what people fail to understand.

I've seen it happen. Someone whom I'll call Chuck once messed up and was unfaithful. He admitted his mistake to his wife (whom I'll call Susan) IMMEDIATELY and asked her to forgive him. She seemed to forgive him very quickly and easily.

From that m oment forward, Chuck never had a single legitimate complaint in the marriage again. If he was unhappy with something, and tried to talk to Susan about it, she generally didn't care. She admitted later it was because on some level, she felt he still didn't deserve to get whatever it was he wanted in any given argument. She deligted in reminding him of how lucky he should feel that she didn't leave him, (yet often insisted that she wasn't the sort of person to rub his nose in the past).

So the truth is, she never truly forgave him nor was she willing to make the effort to try. When he encouraged her to go to co unseling to help deal with her feelings of resentment she refused, deciding that the status quo was just fine the way it was.

It's no surprise their marriage ended shortly after that revelation. (Fully 12 years after the initial unfaithfulness).

"So what's your point, Neo B?"

My point is that marital infidelity is never justifiable nor is it excusable, but it can be survived. The person who has been betrayed shouldn't have to work hard to help fix the problem but the reality is, they DO. If they want the marriage to continue, and truly want to forgive, then they must work hard as well. The onus can't be all on the one who made the error in the first place. It may seem unfair, but that's how it is.

Well stated, Neo B http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Terrific.gif

Then you aren't paying attention.

Men are also victims of domestic violence. One of the biggest problems they face is attitudes like yours, which keep them from coming forward and also from getting justice when it comes to prosecuting their abusers.

This is true.

I have been the victim of physical abuse from my ex. It never really went anywhere because I am physically much larger and stronger than my ex so I was able to prevent her from doing me serious harm, but I admit if she had been able to it would be difficult to speak out and be taken seriously. (And no, I NEVER hit her back. Not one single time, ever.)

Could I have called the police? Yeah I could have... but again, I wasn't seriously hurt so it would have been difficiult to prove even IF they would have taken me seriously, and it would also have been traumatic for the kids if somehow I could have had her arrested. (They never witnessed her hitting me.)

Well stated, Neo B http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Terrific.gif

Thanks... great emote, BTW.

Thanks... great emote, BTW.

*bows* http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Great.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/WeAreNotWorthy.gif

It is the truth. I know fellow who is a government worker; one night he got a call from a man about domestic violence. He sent couple of cops over, and they found a man who had been beaten by his wife. They could not keep from laughing, and they basically told the guy that a "woman" that beats him-up is his own problem.
One thing that really bothers me is how domestic violence is portrayed in mainstream movies and TV. A man hitting a woman has finally become pretty unacceptable, and a man who hits a woman is generally portrayed as a "bad guy," but it's still depressingly common to see a woman hit a man and be portrayed as the "good guy" in the situation. Women slapping or striking men is still commonly shown as a justified action.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting. It doesn't matter how angry you are. It doesn't matter if he/she cheated on you, or is leaving you, or had a two-headed love baby with your evil twin, or anything else. You do not hit.

When a woman slapping a man across the face is trivialized or down-played as not a big deal, that's sexism, and it's bullshit. For one, it trivializes female actions, and makes it seem like females aren't really capable of doing physical harm anyhow. But, more importantly, it perpetuates the idea that it's okay to hit or physically abuse men, because they're supposed to be tough enough to take it. That's fucking wrong.

Men aren't any tougher than women, so it's bullshit to act like men should be expected to take more pain than women. Men aren't any less capable of understanding words and reasoning, so there's no reason to hit them as if they are stupid animals. Men aren't any less deserving of respect than women.

Of course, anti-feminists will argue against this. They'll argue that men and women are "different" in ways that make it wrong wrong wrong to hit a girl, but okay to hit a boy. And then they'll turn around and accuse feminists (like me) of being man-haters.

One thing that really bothers me is how domestic violence is portrayed in mainstream movies and TV. A man hitting a woman has finally become pretty unacceptable, and a man who hits a woman is generally portrayed as a "bad guy," but it's still depressingly common to see a woman hit a man and be portrayed as the "good guy" in the situation. Women slapping or striking men is still commonly shown as a justified action.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting. It doesn't matter how angry you are. It doesn't matter if he/she cheated on you, or is leaving you, or had a two-headed love baby with your evil twin, or anything else. You do not hit.


My mom taught me the same thing. On some level, I think that when my ex used to hit me, she was emboldened by the knowledge that I would not hit her back. Sometimes she actually pushed my buttons to see just how far she could push me before I snapped and hit her.

I never did, but I bet if I had she'd have been screaming bloody murder...


When a woman slapping a man across the face is trivialized or down-played as not a big deal, that's sexism, and it's bullshit. For one, it trivializes female actions, and makes it seem like females aren't really capable of doing physical harm anyhow. But, more importantly, it perpetuates the idea that it's okay to hit or physically abuse men, because they're supposed to be tough enough to take it. That's fucking wrong.

Men aren't any tougher than women, so it's bullshit to act like men should be expected to take more pain than women. Men aren't any less capable of understanding words and reasoning, so there's no reason to hit them as if they are stupid animals. Men aren't any less deserving of respect than women.


And men have a lower pain threshold ;)


Of course, anti-feminists will argue against this. They'll argue that men and women are "different" in ways that make it wrong wrong wrong to hit a girl, but okay to hit a boy. And then they'll turn around and accuse feminists (like me) of being man-haters.

One wonders what their true goal is.

One thing that really bothers me is how domestic violence is portrayed in mainstream movies and TV. A man hitting a woman has finally become pretty unacceptable, and a man who hits a woman is generally portrayed as a "bad guy," but it's still depressingly common to see a woman hit a man and be portrayed as the "good guy" in the situation. Women slapping or striking men is still commonly shown as a justified action.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting. It doesn't matter how angry you are. It doesn't matter if he/she cheated on you, or is leaving you, or had a two-headed love baby with your evil twin, or anything else. You do not hit.

When a woman slapping a man across the face is trivialized or down-played as not a big deal, that's sexism, and it's bullshit. For one, it trivializes female actions, and makes it seem like females aren't really capable of doing physical harm anyhow. But, more importantly, it perpetuates the idea that it's okay to hit or physically abuse men, because they're supposed to be tough enough to take it. That's fucking wrong.

Men aren't any tougher than women, so it's bullshit to act like men should be expected to take more pain than women. Men aren't any less capable of understanding words and reasoning, so there's no reason to hit them as if they are stupid animals. Men aren't any less deserving of respect than women.

Of course, anti-feminists will argue against this. They'll argue that men and women are "different" in ways that make it wrong wrong wrong to hit a girl, but okay to hit a boy. And then they'll turn around and accuse feminists (like me) of being man-haters.

And they'll be just as wrong and just as stupid as they usually are.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting.

No hitting? But that takes out one of the most fun part of a lot of my relationships!

....oooh, no kind of that hitting. Right, carry on.

No hitting? But that takes out one of the most fun part of a lot of my relationships!

....oooh, no kind of that hitting. Right, carry on.

lol

No hitting? But that takes out one of the most fun part of a lot of my relationships!

....oooh, no kind of that hitting. Right, carry on.

ROWR! spanking FTW!

spanking FTW!

pft, far too mild.

pft, far too mild.

Well one never knows what the audience can handle, so it pays to be a bit restrained in responding ;)

Well one never knows what the audience can handle, so it pays to be a bit restrained in responding ;)

Neo Art is more the "I vill break you" kind.

Well one never knows what the audience can handle, so it pays to be a bit restrained in responding ;)

*ties Neo B to a post, gags him and starts whipping him*


*realizes forgot to go over a 'safe word'*


*shrugs*

;)

One thing that really bothers me is how domestic violence is portrayed in mainstream movies and TV. A man hitting a woman has finally become pretty unacceptable, and a man who hits a woman is generally portrayed as a "bad guy," but it's still depressingly common to see a woman hit a man and be portrayed as the "good guy" in the situation. Women slapping or striking men is still commonly shown as a justified action.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting. It doesn't matter how angry you are. It doesn't matter if he/she cheated on you, or is leaving you, or had a two-headed love baby with your evil twin, or anything else. You do not hit.

When a woman slapping a man across the face is trivialized or down-played as not a big deal, that's sexism, and it's bullshit. For one, it trivializes female actions, and makes it seem like females aren't really capable of doing physical harm anyhow. But, more importantly, it perpetuates the idea that it's okay to hit or physically abuse men, because they're supposed to be tough enough to take it. That's fucking wrong.

Men aren't any tougher than women, so it's bullshit to act like men should be expected to take more pain than women. Men aren't any less capable of understanding words and reasoning, so there's no reason to hit them as if they are stupid animals. Men aren't any less deserving of respect than women.

Of course, anti-feminists will argue against this. They'll argue that men and women are "different" in ways that make it wrong wrong wrong to hit a girl, but okay to hit a boy. And then they'll turn around and accuse feminists (like me) of being man-haters.
I endorse this product and/or service.


Honestly, if a woman is ever stupid enough to hit me in the face, I swear she's going to be very surprised when she gets what's coming to her.

I see it much like this: a 90 pound weakling does not slug a 250 pounds football player, thinking he can get away with it just because "hey, if he hits back, he's picking on someone smaller than him". Same goes for women. Just because men are generally bigger and physically stronger does not mean women should get a free ticket to Slaptown. If a woman is stupid enough to slap a man, or in other words, throw the first punch (because it is exactly what this is), then she deserves to face the consequences of her actions. Be that a good one in the teeth or assault charges, depending on the man's personal preferences for solving conflicts.

Neo Art is more the "I vill break you" kind.

Dominant = Count Dracula? :eek:

Neo Art is more the "I vill break you" kind.

you know...kinda sorta. Although, not with the german accent of course.

*ties Neo B to a post, gags him and starts whipping him*


*realizes forgot to go over a 'safe word'*


*shrugs*

;)

Well now I sorta had it the other way around...

*tries to restrain the urge to type it...*

*decides not to....*

*but....*

*is positive SOMEBODY will get the reference...*

*Is fine with that*

"Nadu, Kajira."

Neo Art is more the "I vill break you" kind.

*can only imagine what sort of toys are in the toybox

Dominant = Count Dracula? :eek:

there's a "sucking" joke in there somewhere...

and check yer damned TGs woman!

there's a "sucking" joke in there somewhere...


And that would only be the beginning...

there's a "sucking" joke in there somewhere...

and check yer damned TGs woman!

A dom doing the sucking? That'd be a novelty... ;)

And speaking of sucking (always a great segue, no?), have I mentioned that I suck at checking TGs?

A dom doing the sucking? That'd be a novelty... ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of "I vant you to su.." anyway...

And speaking of sucking

I'm listening....

(always a great segue, no?), have I mentioned that I suck at checking TGs?

Repeatedly. Ergo the friendly reminder.

Dominant = Count Dracula? :eek:

you know...kinda sorta. Although, not with the german accent of course.

I had the image of the stereotypical Russian dominatrix in my head at the time, why it decided to come out onto the keyboard as I typed I have no idea.

I had the image of the stereotypical Russian dominatrix in my head at the time, why it decided to come out onto the keyboard as I typed I have no idea.

do I strike you as a dominatrix? Heh

do I strike you as a dominatrix? Heh

No, I know better, that's just the image I had going for some reason. My mind is a fractured mess like that sometimes.

My parents taught me a very simple rule when it comes to relationships: no hitting.

See, I work a bit differently. Proportional response.

An ex of mine once told me she worried about being abusive or something, even though she was very timid and quiet, because her father and sister and brother were all abusive. So she asked what I would do if she had hit me. I responded with something along the lines of:
"If you slap me playfully, I'll laugh, if it's in anger we'll work it out verbally. If you come up and punch me in the face for no reason or out of anger you'll be on the ground unconcious before you get the second one in, and when you wake up we'll discuss it, unless you wish to do it again, in which case we will repeat the process."

She thought it funny actually. And it never had to come to that, in fact she never hit me in anger, hell she never even yelled at me in anger.

Of course proportional response doesn't always work. I told her father one time after he said something to the effect of "You respct me, I'll take care of you", to which I informed him that my only concern was his daughter. As long as he kept in good with her, he kept in good with me. If he ever broke that however, I would make sure he wished he was back in jail when I was done with him.

Funnier too because this is a 120 pound geek (me) seriously telling a 280 pound 6 foot tall Latino man who'd been in jail three times before that I would destroy him if he ever hit his daughter again, and I meant it. And he believed me (It's all in the eyes).

That was 6 years ago, and he hasn't touched her since.

Why not have sex afterwards?
Takes too long.

And speaking of sucking (always a great segue, no?), have I mentioned that I suck at checking TGs?
That's horrible D=

Then you aren't paying attention.

Men are also victims of domestic violence. One of the biggest problems they face is attitudes like yours, which keep them from coming forward and also from getting justice when it comes to prosecuting their abusers.

Et tu, Bottle? To think, I thought you would be on my side with my whole male-bashing spiel.

Anywho, I pay plenty of attention. I watch the news. All you hear about is "This man is in trouble for beating his wife" or "This man is in jail on rape charges." The people in trouble for violent crimes are never women. Men may be victims of domestic violence in, say, gay relationships, or may be victims of abusive fathers or even sons, but wives? Give me a break. Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

What...the....fuck?

Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.

Try about 1 in 12.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?


Are you suggesting that the physical abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex wife is somehow justice for actions I never took?

Et tu, Bottle? To think, I thought you would be on my side with my whole male-bashing spiel.

Anywho, I pay plenty of attention. I watch the news. All you hear about is "This man is in trouble for beating his wife" or "This man is in jail on rape charges." The people in trouble for violent crimes are never women. Men may be victims of domestic violence in, say, gay relationships, or may be victims of abusive fathers or even sons, but wives? Give me a break. Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

How absolutely pathetic. The solution is to start treating men like crap because dead guys were jerks? And you consider this, what, progressive? Feminist? It's neither, it's garbage. The fact that you thought Bottle would agree with this tripe shows an inherent misunderstanding of feminism.

If you want to keep buying into negative gender stereotypes, fine, but I'd imagine your back must hurt what with your head so far up your own ass.

Are you suggesting that the physical abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex wife is somehow justice for actions I never took?

He's not such much suggesting it as he is outright saying it. It's bullshit, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it. Abuse is abuse is abuse. He's too busy touting the "only men are abusers" sexist stereotype to notice.

He's not such much suggesting it as he is outright saying it. It's bullshit, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it. Abuse is abuse is abuse. He's too busy touting the "only men are abusers" sexist stereotype to notice.

Roger that.

Are you suggesting that the physical abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex wife is somehow justice for actions I never took?

From the point of view of a society that sees men and women as a collective, that's exactly right. And it's not actions you never took - it's actions that your predecessors took. Allowing this violence against men to go unchecked is the same sort of logic that causes people to demand reparations for slavery or for modern Germany to be burdened with continued Holocaust guilt - does it make sense on an individual level? Of course not.

However, the only way to level the playing field once and for all is for the pendulum to swing the other way for a while. My grumbling about being pissed at my own gender? Partially a cry for "Wise the fuck up, gentlemen," and partially a way to accelerate this to get it the fuck out of the way.

That said, if I married an abusive woman...I would blame myself for being so damn stupid.

As for the one in 12 figure...seems unlikely. One in 50 is about the largest number that sounds reasonable. Was I worried about marrying an abuser when I got hitched? Somehow it felt like worrying about getting AIDS from a flu shot. Say what you will about it; that's the perception. Guys don't worry about abusive girlfriends.

How absolutely pathetic. The solution is to start treating men like crap because dead guys were jerks? And you consider this, what, progressive? Feminist? It's neither, it's garbage. The fact that you thought Bottle would agree with this tripe shows an inherent misunderstanding of feminism.

If you want to keep buying into negative gender stereotypes, fine, but I'd imagine your back must hurt what with your head so far up your own ass.

Stating an unpopular opinion is no grounds for flaming me. Back the hell off.

Et tu, Bottle? To think, I thought you would be on my side with my whole male-bashing spiel.

There's male-bashing, and then there's assault. Big difference.

Anywho, I pay plenty of attention. I watch the news. All you hear about is "This man is in trouble for beating his wife" or "This man is in jail on rape charges." The people in trouble for violent crimes are never women. Men may be victims of domestic violence in, say, gay relationships, or may be victims of abusive fathers or even sons, but wives? Give me a break. Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

Did you not read Bottle's post? The prevailing macho stereotype virtually cuts off any attempt an abused man might make to report being abused by his wife to the proper authorities. There are PLENTY of crimes you don't hear about because they're simply not reported. It was that way with rape and sexual assault forever, and while the climate for reporting that particular set of crimes, it still goes underreported. I assure you that while the number of abused men is a fraction of the number of abused women, it is NOT infinitesimal.

You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.

If that's the case, then why are there prisons for women? Have you been to one? I have. My vocal jazz group in high school performed at one on tour -- I tell you, for the adolescent boys in tuxedos, it was the FASTEST set-up and tear-down that group ever executed. Those women aren't there for stealing lipstick, many are there for violent crimes, and look the part. Once again, "you've never heard of it" =/= "isn't a problem".

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

What is wrong with you? Do you realize that your line of reasoning would allow for black-on-white violence to go unreported or minimally punished? Or indeed, color-of-any-kind-on-white violence.

I simply cannot believe that you think someone who never lifted a finger against a woman would deserve to get beaten because historically, MANY men felt obliged to beat women. Are you also in favor of reparations for slavery, even for whites who came to the US from other countries and never owned anything but what they brought with them? Seriously?

I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

If you're truly sick of women getting the shitty end of the stick, then what you want is equality. Equality does NOT mean women should adopt all of the worst traits of men and use them to avenge centuries of oppression. Equality means exactly that, equals. Equal pay for equal work, equal promotions, the whole lot of it. Equality by law is one thing, but it takes a long time to reverse an ingrained attitude. Those get passed on through families, and the law can do very little to stop that (without getting ridiculously invasive).

I'm glad you recognize that women have been historically relegated to lower status than men on the average, and that in some ways, it still happens. But making a man suffer abuse at the hands of a woman when it happens is not justice, it's just plain mean.

I don't understand how someone can logically think this.
If someone cheats on their wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend then that person is to blame for their actions. We always have a choice.

However, the only way to level the playing field once and for all is for the pendulum to swing the other way for a while. My grumbling about being pissed at my own gender? Partially a cry for "Wise the fuck up, gentlemen," and partially a way to accelerate this to get it the fuck out of the way.


Or, you know, tearing down the institutions that allowed this to go on unchecked for hundreds of years...


As for the one in 12 figure...seems unlikely. One in 50 is about the largest number that sounds reasonable. Was I worried about marrying an abuser when I got hitched? Somehow it felt like worrying about getting AIDS from a flu shot. Say what you will about it; that's the perception. Guys don't worry about abusive girlfriends.

So we have a hive mind now?

As for the one in 12 figure...seems unlikely.

You have an issue with the figure? Take it up with the Center for Disease Control.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol42/issue15/images/medium/joan_women_aggressors.gif

In a survey sample of 18,761 relationships involving a male, there were 1,669 cases of non-reciprocal interpersonal violence against the male partner by the female partner. 1 in less than 12

“When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs,” the popular psychologist and radio personality said.



Remember that ladies, if you dont pander to your man's chauvenistic ego and sense of manliness, if you make him feel like you can actually function on your own and wouldnt be totally incapable of doing anything for yourself if he wasnt around, you deserve to be cheated on.


Wow, this woman is an idiot.

Dr. Laura: Setting women's liberation back 50 years.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

Okay, speaking as a woman who has actually had a male significant other abuse her - no. Just no. My abusive ex's behavior was not the fault of "men," and I have no interest in punishing "men" for it. If you want to suggest allowing men who have previously personally abused their partners to be abused, you'd at least have a case (I wouldn't agree with it, but it'd at least be a semi-rational argument), but there's simply no justification for giving one gender the right to abuse the other, regardless of which gender is which.

Dr. Laura: Setting women's liberation back 50 years.

Is Dr. Laura even female? Or just a man masquerading as a woman so he can get his sexist views heard????

but there's simply no justification for giving one gender the right to abuse the other, regardless of which gender is which.

Unless...you know...she likes it.

Unless...you know...she likes it.

Well, then it's not abuse, it's just good clean fun. ;)

Well, then it's not abuse, it's just good fun. ;)

Fixed. Clean has nothing to do with it.

And check your damned TGs (again) woman!

From the point of view of a society that sees men and women as a collective, that's exactly right. And it's not actions you never took - it's actions that your predecessors took. Allowing this violence against men to go unchecked is the same sort of logic that causes people to demand reparations for slavery or for modern Germany to be burdened with continued Holocaust guilt - does it make sense on an individual level? Of course not.

However, the only way to level the playing field once and for all is for the pendulum to swing the other way for a while. My grumbling about being pissed at my own gender? Partially a cry for "Wise the fuck up, gentlemen," and partially a way to accelerate this to get it the fuck out of the way.

That said, if I married an abusive woman...I would blame myself for being so damn stupid.

Not sure what kind of bizarre logic tells you that the only way to fix an injustice is to commit another one. Personally, I believe in the kind of justice where one is punished/rewarded for their own actions, not some kind of universal karmic balance.

Remember that ladies, if you dont pander to your man's chauvenistic ego and sense of manliness, if you make him feel like you can actually function on your own and wouldnt be totally incapable of doing anything for yourself if he wasnt around, you deserve to be cheated on.

Actually, there's a certain logic to it.

Think about it. Aren't men often counseled to make sure the woman in his life feels appreciated, loved, secure, attractive, etc? Guys need certain emotional reinforcements as well.

Unless...you know...she likes it.That wouldn't be "abuse" though.

Okay, speaking as a woman who has actually had a male significant other abuse her - no. Just no. My abusive ex's behavior was not the fault of "men," and I have no interest in punishing "men" for it. If you want to suggest allowing men who have previously personally abused their partners to be abused, you'd at least have a case (I wouldn't agree with it, but it'd at least be a semi-rational argument), but there's simply no justification for giving one gender the right to abuse the other, regardless of which gender is which.

Exactly. Abuse is abuse. The idea that for some reason women should be allowed to abuse men because our ancestors did is repugnant. What we can do is start tearing down idiotic stereotypes and gender roles and start again in an equal society.

Though perhaps that's too pie in the sky for the "all men are animals and should be punished" crowd.

Unless...you know...she likes it.

And it appears we've come full circle again ;)

That wouldn't be "abuse" though.

a subjective term is it not? To be honest I've had a relationship or two where both of us involved were quite happy with the arrangement, but to an outsider it would sure as hell looked a lot like abuse.

From the point of view of a society that sees men and women as a collective, that's exactly right. And it's not actions you never took - it's actions that your predecessors took. Allowing this violence against men to go unchecked is the same sort of logic that causes people to demand reparations for slavery or for modern Germany to be burdened with continued Holocaust guilt - does it make sense on an individual level? Of course not.

That's not exactly right at all. It's holding the son responsible for the sins of the father. It's the exact opposite of right. My predecessors were Hessian mercenaries. Should I be held liable for everything they did? Hell, should I even be a citizen of the US when you consider that the Hessians fought on the side of the English during the US Revolutionary War? Poppycock.

However, the only way to level the playing field once and for all is for the pendulum to swing the other way for a while. My grumbling about being pissed at my own gender? Partially a cry for "Wise the fuck up, gentlemen," and partially a way to accelerate this to get it the fuck out of the way.

That never works. Institutionalized abuse is still abuse even if it's prescribed to right an earlier wrong. More abuse on the children of the abusers does not erase abuses of the past. There's a reason why South Africa didn't institutionalize discrimination against whites when apartheid ended. They knew it wouldn't work and only foster more violence in the other direction. Abusing people systematically tends to piss them off. It takes great control of primal urges not to visit revenge on those who really deserve it (and instead allow legal processes to work) -- it should take none at all to visit that revenge on succeeding generations.

That said, if I married an abusive woman...I would blame myself for being so damn stupid.

Do the abused always know that they've married an abusive person? No.

As for the one in 12 figure...seems unlikely. One in 50 is about the largest number that sounds reasonable. Was I worried about marrying an abuser when I got hitched? Somehow it felt like worrying about getting AIDS from a flu shot. Say what you will about it; that's the perception. Guys don't worry about abusive girlfriends.

If the figure seems unlikely, produce one that is likely and back it up. It doesn't matter what sounds reasonable. It matters what IS. It took ten seconds at Google to find this (http://www.dvmen.org/). Have a look -- and that's just in Colorado.

I haven't read the book but I did hear an interview with her on the radio and there's another point to be made: Forgiveness.

Forgiveness is NOT easy. When it's something like this, it takes time and effort to be able to truly forgive somebody. The problem is that often the wife says she forgave her husband but hasn't truly. She continues to bear resentment and that will erode a marriage. If she can't forgive him then they ought to divorce. If she can, it will be a long and difficult process. This is what people fail to understand.

I've seen it happen. Someone whom I'll call Chuck once messed up and was unfaithful. He admitted his mistake to his wife (whom I'll call Susan) IMMEDIATELY and asked her to forgive him. She seemed to forgive him very quickly and easily.

From that m oment forward, Chuck never had a single legitimate complaint in the marriage again. If he was unhappy with something, and tried to talk to Susan about it, she generally didn't care. She admitted later it was because on some level, she felt he still didn't deserve to get whatever it was he wanted in any given argument. She deligted in reminding him of how lucky he should feel that she didn't leave him, (yet often insisted that she wasn't the sort of person to rub his nose in the past).

So the truth is, she never truly forgave him nor was she willing to make the effort to try. When he encouraged her to go to co unseling to help deal with her feelings of resentment she refused, deciding that the status quo was just fine the way it was.

It's no surprise their marriage ended shortly after that revelation. (Fully 12 years after the initial unfaithfulness).

"So what's your point, Neo B?"

My point is that marital infidelity is never justifiable nor is it excusable, but it can be survived. The person who has been betrayed shouldn't have to work hard to help fix the problem but the reality is, they DO. If they want the marriage to continue, and truly want to forgive, then they must work hard as well. The onus can't be all on the one who made the error in the first place. It may seem unfair, but that's how it is.


The biggest mistake people make in trying to repair a marriage is that the injured party will claim "I can forgive, but I can never forget". The fact that a person does not make the effort to forget will keep said injury in the equation of the marriage forever. It will always be there, it will always be used in disputes. It becomes a tool for the injured to use again and again.

For a marriage to survive the forgiver also has to forget it...forever. Put it away and resolve to never bring it up again. It is not a bomb that can be lobbed over and over again as the trump card in any and all fights. This is the mistake that is too often made. Forgiving is the hardest thing anyone can do, it means forgetting. If you can't forget it, you have not forgiven it.

From the point of view of a society that sees men and women as a collective, that's exactly right. And it's not actions you never took - it's actions that your predecessors took. Allowing this violence against men to go unchecked is the same sort of logic that causes people to demand reparations for slavery or for modern Germany to be burdened with continued Holocaust guilt - does it make sense on an individual level? Of course not.

However, the only way to level the playing field once and for all is for the pendulum to swing the other way for a while. My grumbling about being pissed at my own gender? Partially a cry for "Wise the fuck up, gentlemen," and partially a way to accelerate this to get it the fuck out of the way.


By the same token, should crowds of angry black citizens put white people on fire randomly to get "justice" for the Ku Klux Klan victims? Or simply reduce whites to slavery for past wrongs of two centuries ago?

Should gay men pick up random heterosexual guys (you?) and leave them to die on a fence after beating the fuck out of them for being straight, in revenge over Matthew Sheppard's death?

Should Jews build concentration camps in germany and exterminate germans on the basis that their ancestors comitted genocide on Jews?

No. We shouldn't. And we shouldn't decide to tolerate women slapping, punching, kicking, or otherwise abusing men in any way or form just because our forefathers were violent fucktards who made our foremother's lives hell.

It just makes no sense, and will do us no good except keep alive the cycle of needless, stupid, immoral violence.

None of us is personally responsible or accountable for the fucktardery of others, be those others be our ancestors, ethnic group, or nation. What we need to do is remember said fucktardery and make sure we don't forget not to be morons ourselves. Not get treated like shit just because other people of our gender/ethnic group/nationality/religon treated people of another gender/minority group/nationality/religion like shit before we were even born.

The biggest mistake people make in trying to repair a marriage is that the injured party will claim "I can forgive, but I can never forget". The fact that a person does not make the effort to forget will keep said injury in the equation of the marriage forever. It will always be there, it will always be used in disputes. It becomes a tool for the injured to use again and again.

For a marriage to survive the forgiver also has to forget it...forever. Put it away and resolve to never bring it up again. It is not a bomb that can be lobbed over and over again as the trump card in any and all fights. This is the mistake that is too often made. Forgiving is the hardest thing anyone can do, it means forgetting. If you can't forget it, you have not forgiven it.

In the story of Chuck and Susan, her emotional distance from him and refusal to meet him halfway whenever there was an argument ultimately led to a whole slew of other marital problems, including infidelity to at least some degree on both sides and an eternal struggle for moral superiority.

Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

"Captain, we are detecting significant amounts of tommyrot on our sensors."

"INSIPID ALERT! All posters to verbiage-stations!"

Abuse is always wrong, but as Women who beat up their husbands have never experienced the (justified) witch hunt Male purpetrators have, I think it's time we got seriously equal.

A woman or man who cheats often has no one to blame but themselves, but that violates Modern Society's view of "Where there's Pain, there's Blame and Gain.

Are you suggesting that the physical abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex wife is somehow justice for actions I never took?

Well, yes of course, isn't that how it all works...

Anywho, I pay plenty of attention. I watch the news. All you hear about is "This man is in trouble for beating his wife" or "This man is in jail on rape charges." The people in trouble for violent crimes are never women. Men may be victims of domestic violence in, say, gay relationships, or may be victims of abusive fathers or even sons, but wives? Give me a break. Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.
Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades. The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

Sorry but WTF? Are You actually a human being?
You have just advocated Domestic Violence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh Dear God!

There is no way of collecting statistics on men abused by women. Men are proud and often frightened of ridicule. And if they're abused they're scared of their wives.

You are a male feminist (and a militant one)!????!!! OK, lets marry you off to Queen Husband Slasher and see if you still spout that Cr*p after a year. You are unbelieveable!

What about what women put men through? Would you seriously suggest letting it carry on? You are sexist against your own gender!?!

Yes, I am V angry. I've seen the evil side of Women. It is horrific. Pray to God you never see it.

A woman or man who cheats often has no one to blame but themselves, but that violates Modern Society's view of "Where there's Pain, there's Blame and Gain.

Or maybe things just aren't so simple.

It's easy to throw stones at the person wh o does the cheating, but if we're not willing to explore the causes and circumstances leading to it, we're n ot doing anything to remedy the trend.

Are there times whe the unfaithful spouse is just scum and selfish? Sure, but it's counterproductive to assume it's always so. Sometimes there are things that can be done to prevent the situation from getting to the point where one or the other becomes so desperate to meet an emotional need that they act out.

So men are nothing more than brainless buckets of hormones that are incapable of making rational choices. Thanks for the info Dr. Laura. I'll be sure to sex my future husband every 15 min 24/7. Chafing be damned!

Hi my name is John, can I buy you a drink? :P

It all depends. Sometimes, it is the womens fault.Sometimes it's the mans fault. But I would say about 90% of the time it is both of their faults, having many contributing factors.

"Captain, we are detecting significant amounts of tommyrot on our sensors."

"INSIPID ALERT! All posters to verbiage-stations!"

Vermillion Alert?

Or maybe things just aren't so simple.

It's easy to throw stones at the person wh o does the cheating, but if we're not willing to explore the causes and circumstances leading to it, we're n ot doing anything to remedy the trend.

Are there times whe the unfaithful spouse is just scum and selfish? Sure, but it's counterproductive to assume it's always so. Sometimes there are things that can be done to prevent the situation from getting to the point where one or the other becomes so desperate to meet an emotional need that they act out.

I can't say I agree with that. Cheating is a deliberate breach of trust regardless of whether it's temptation or a desire to avenge any number of so-called "contributing factors". We are all responsible for our own actions. As I posted earlier, the decision to cheat is more than one choice; it's a series of choices that lead to the act of sexual infidelity. It isn't counterproductive to own up to one's actions. I can think of nothing that would lead me to believe that cheating is ever justified.

Or maybe things just aren't so simple.

It's easy to throw stones at the person wh o does the cheating, but if we're not willing to explore the causes and circumstances leading to it, we're n ot doing anything to remedy the trend.

I'm with you so far.


Are there times whe the unfaithful spouse is just scum and selfish? Sure, but it's counterproductive to assume it's always so.

Now you've lost me.

Cheating is always scummy and selfish. There may be various motives behind the decision to be scummy and selfish, but it's still scummy and selfish...AND A CHOICE. It is ultimately the responsibility of the person who made the choice. If you want to explore the reasons why the cheater made a shitty choice, then do so with the goal of teaching them to not make shitty choices in the future.

The point, for me, is to get across the message that cheating is always shitty, and it is always the fault of the cheater.


Sometimes there are things that can be done to prevent the situation from getting to the point where one or the other becomes so desperate to meet an emotional need that they act out.
I don't agree with this.

If you are so desperate to meet an emotional need, and if you honestly can't get your partner to provide what you feel you need, then the right choice is to end the relationship. Cheating is a pathetic, scummy, selfish choice. There are many reasons why otherwise-good people may make pathetic, scummy, selfish choices sometimes. It's good for them to learn those reasons so they can avoid doing so in the future.

In the story of Chuck and Susan, her emotional distance from him and refusal to meet him halfway whenever there was an argument ultimately led to a whole slew of other marital problems, including infidelity to at least some degree on both sides and an eternal struggle for moral superiority.

Exactly. It is a two way street, if one party has erred and genuinely asked forgiveness, and the other party wants any decent shot at making it work the whole thing has to be genuinely forgiven. Which means there is no withdrawal of emotion over it. Tough to do but it can be done, most people are just not that committed to a relationship to want to work that hard at making it work. It means swallowing your pride.

Et tu, Bottle? To think, I thought you would be on my side with my whole male-bashing spiel.

Then you really haven't been paying attention.

I have zero patience with "male bashing" or "female bashing." I think the concept of binary gender is crap to begin with, and bashing somebody for being a particular gender is fucking stupid.

I believe in holding people responsible for their actions. If some asshole beats his wife, I don't blame his gender for it. I hold HIM responsible for being an asshole. Maleness doesn't make you beat up on people. Maleness is not an excuse for shitty behavior. Bashing maleness is just another way of letting ASSHOLES off the hook.


Anywho, I pay plenty of attention. I watch the news. All you hear about is "This man is in trouble for beating his wife" or "This man is in jail on rape charges." The people in trouble for violent crimes are never women. Men may be victims of domestic violence in, say, gay relationships, or may be victims of abusive fathers or even sons, but wives? Give me a break. Even if there are so-called male victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives, the number is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth pursuing.

This is just like the "men can't be raped" myths. It would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.


You even said it - one in three women is a victim of domestic violence. What's the number for men? One in three million? We have bigger fish to fry.

I don't see why we can't fight ALL domestic violence.


Aside from that, after all the shit my gender has put women through, it's about damn time they get a taste of their own medicine for a few decades.

"Your gender" didn't abuse anybody. The male gender doesn't beat wives any more than Caucasian ethnicity beats wives.

Male violence against women has been supported and encouraged by a culture in which gender is seen as some innate controlling force, or some divine role assignment. Fuck that noise. Gender doesn't determine whether or not you're an asshole, it just determines how you'll be dealt with if you decide to be an asshole (thanks to our fucked up sexist society).

You're contributing to that problem by perpetuating the idea that "maleness" abuses women, or that being male is what makes somebody into an abuser.


The cops laugh at a male domestic violence victim? Well, big tough man, how the fuck do you like it after centuries of beating women?

I would love to be introduced to this centuries-old wife beater of yours.


I am sick of all that men put women through. I wouldn't advocate violence against men necessarily; if what everyone here says is true, there's plenty to go around. But I wouldn't make a big deal about it.
I'm sick of what women are put through, too. Sexism blows. Adding more sexism does not help.

When the hell have you ever heard of a wife physically abusing her husband? I've never heard of a single case. Not one. Just as I've never heard of a female politician cheating on her husband. Not once. Does Hillary screw around on Bill? Does Nancy Pelosi screw around on her husband?

If a man cheats on his "abusive" wife, he's both a cheater and a liar.

Are you fucking serious? I personally know of 2 men who have been abused by their female partner. First, abuse is not only physical, but even that happens, and secondly, mentalities like this is the reason you dont hear about it often, because people either scorn the man as "weak" or people like you call him a liar.



Frankly, this is chauvenism in a much worse way. You feel that women need to be coddled, can do no wrong, and that evil men are out to get them.

Think about it. Aren't men often counseled to make sure the woman in his life feels appreciated, loved, secure, attractive, etc? Guys need certain emotional reinforcements as well.

You can give us men emotional reinforcement without pandering to chauvenism or makings us feel like without us around youd be incapable of functioning because your just too damn emotional like the silly woman you are.

I can't say I agree with that. Cheating is a deliberate breach of trust regardless of whether it's temptation or a desire to avenge any number of so-called "contributing factors". We are all responsible for our own actions. As I posted earlier, the decision to cheat is more than one choice; it's a series of choices that lead to the act of sexual infidelity. It isn't counterproductive to own up to one's actions. I can think of nothing that would lead me to believe that cheating is ever justified.


Now you've lost me.

Cheating is always scummy and selfish. There may be various motives behind the decision to be scummy and selfish, but it's still scummy and selfish...AND A CHOICE. It is ultimately the responsibility of the person who made the choice. If you want to explore the reasons why the cheater made a shitty choice, then do so with the goal of teaching them to not make shitty choices in the future.

The point, for me, is to get across the message that cheating is always shitty, and it is always the fault of the cheater.


We all agree that there's no justifying cheating, but you can't pigeonhole every person who had ever succumbed to that temptation and write them off as a scumbag, plain and simple. How often are things in life truly that simple?

While it's true that these things result from a series of decisions, people aren't always aware of where these decisions are taking them until they've gotten themselves mired so deeply that while they may not yet have committed the physical act of infidelity, they have already, in essence, been unfaithful.

My Chuck and Susan story is a true one, and one I was close enough to to see it happen every step of the way. You guys would probably say that Chuck is just a scumbag, plain and simple. I know the situation to be not so nearly that simple. I wish it were. I wish Chuck could have been written off as s simple selfish scumbag because it would have made the whole thing easier to deal with.

These are real problems and they happen to real people, and one unpleasant fact that most will refuse to accept is that under the right conditions, *ANY* person could find themselves in that kind of temptation, and the tragedy is that most people have had no education in how to deal with it.



I don't agree with this.

If you are so desperate to meet an emotional need, and if you honestly can't get your partner to provide what you feel you need, then the right choice is to end the relationship. Cheating is a pathetic, scummy, selfish choice. There are many reasons why otherwise-good people may make pathetic, scummy, selfish choices sometimes. It's good for them to learn those reasons so they can avoid doing so in the future.

Yes, it is a pathetic, scummy, selfish choice, but the issued that lead up to it aren't that simple. If they were, we'd all be better off. Ending the relationship maybe an option for many, people who can financially handle suddenly going off on their own, or don't have kids who would be torn in two, or who can easily just give up on the relationship and make a clean break.

Is anyone here really naive enough to think that people can simply walk away so easily?

But you're right, it would be good for people to learn the reasons for the bad decisions they make. This is an area that people don't get enough information on, and I suspect part of it is that there's a very definite tendency for people to simply write off those who cheat as scumbags, and nobody is particularly interested in understanding scumbags. It's just more satisfying and easier to simply write them off, I guess.

You can give us men emotional reinforcement without pandering to chauvenism or makings us feel like without us around youd be incapable of functioning because your just too damn emotional like the silly woman you are.

Of course, but there are still very specific things a man needs form a woman, just as there are specific things the woman needs. The latter are talked about all the time. The former, almost never.

*looks at mangled strings*

My puppet is getting out of control. Someone call a lumberjack.

We all agree that there's no justifying cheating, but you can't pigeonhole every person who had ever succumbed to that temptation and write them off as a scumbag, plain and simple. How often are things in life truly that simple?

At least this often. Cheating is a scummy act. That doesn't mean that the person committing the act is necessarily a scumbag, and you're wrong to assume I would write someone off at all without good cause. Nice people make stupid, selfish and sometimes scummy decisions. However, the fact that they are otherwise not scumbags doesn't excuse the act.

While it's true that these things result from a series of decisions, people aren't always aware of where these decisions are taking them until they've gotten themselves mired so deeply that while they may not yet have committed the physical act of infidelity, they have already, in essence, been unfaithful.

Deceiving oneself doesn't excuse the act, either. If you don't honestly know that you're putting yourself into a position to cheat, then you need more help than just marriage counseling.

My Chuck and Susan story is a true one, and one I was close enough to to see it happen every step of the way. You guys would probably say that Chuck is just a scumbag, plain and simple. I know the situation to be not so nearly that simple. I wish it were. I wish Chuck could have been written off as s simple selfish scumbag because it would have made the whole thing easier to deal with.

Again, I don't know chuck. If he's not a scumbag, that's terrific. If he cheated, he committed a scummy act and it is NOT Susan's fault.

These are real problems and they happen to real people, and one unpleasant fact that most will refuse to accept is that under the right conditions, *ANY* person could find themselves in that kind of temptation, and the tragedy is that most people have had no education in how to deal with it.

Education? You mean besides looking at the band on your left ring finger and thinking, "gee, this kinda runs contrary to the vows I took with my wife (and possibly before God)". No sympathy. Yes, temptation is real and it's often difficult to resist, but that's the deal you make when you marry. You weigh the benefits and comforts of monogamy against temptation. If temptation starts to win, you need to "be a man" and start talking about it.

Yes, it is a pathetic, scummy, selfish choice, but the issued that lead up to it aren't that simple. If they were, we'd all be better off. Ending the relationship maybe an option for many, people who can financially handle suddenly going off on their own, or don't have kids who would be torn in two, or who can easily just give up on the relationship and make a clean break.

Sure there are complications for any decision involving more than one person. But the solution is to not wait to become all communication-minded until after the affair. Put your pride away and talk to one another, for fuck's sake. THAT's the simple part that is the tragedy to ignore.

Is anyone here really naive enough to think that people can simply walk away so easily?

When did anyone say it was easy? Sometimes the best thing to do is also the hardest thing to do. That doesn't make it any less right.

But you're right, it would be good for people to learn the reasons for the bad decisions they make. This is an area that people don't get enough information on, and I suspect part of it is that there's a very definite tendency for people to simply write off those who cheat as scumbags, and nobody is particularly interested in understanding scumbags. It's just more satisfying and easier to simply write them off, I guess.

The difference is remorse, recurrence, and sincerity. Some people, let's face it, really ARE scumbags. Those who aren't will most likely manage to get through and heal the damage that infidelity causes, but even some non-scumbags will have to deal with the end of a relationship.

Of course, but there are still very specific things a man needs form a woman, just as there are specific things the woman needs. The latter are talked about all the time. The former, almost never.

Bullshit. Bullshit twice.

What Intangelon said.

And quintuple bullshit on that last bit. No, there are not special things that a man needs from a woman, nor are there special things that a woman needs from a man. No, it wouldn't justify cheating even if there were. And no, womens' needs in a marriage are not talked about constantly while male needs are ignored. That has never been anything even remotely approaching true, ever. It's only in the last generation or so that women's needs in a marriage have even been a serious topic of discussion, and that's pretty much because now women are legally and financially able to LEAVE if a marriage sucks ass.

I'm gonna put a couple things at the top of this post for ease of reference, because it seems to me like you guys are talking past my point.

1)NOBODY is justifying cheaters. I've said it before and I'll say it again because you guys are rpelying as if that's what is happening.
2)NOBODY is 'blaming the cheated-on spouse.' Taking a realistic look at the root causes of a problem isn't the same as assigning blame.

At least this often. Cheating is a scummy act. That doesn't mean that the person committing the act is necessarily a scumbag, and you're wrong to assume I would write someone off at all without good cause. Nice people make stupid, selfish and sometimes scummy decisions. However, the fact that they are otherwise not scumbags doesn't excuse the act.


Of course not. See above. I do not disagree with this. I have said so repeatedly.


Deceiving oneself doesn't excuse the act, either. If you don't honestly know that you're putting yourself into a position to cheat, then you need more help than just marriage counseling.

Education? You mean besides looking at the band on your left ring finger and thinking, "gee, this kinda runs contrary to the vows I took with my wife (and possibly before God)". No sympathy. Yes, temptation is real and it's often difficult to resist, but that's the deal you make when you marry. You weigh the benefits and comforts of monogamy against temptation. If temptation starts to win, you need to "be a man" and start talking about it.


(I rearranged a couple of your points to group my responses. I haven't removed anything.)

It's not a question of self-deception. When I say education I'm talking about helping people to recognize when they're getting into a situation that they may not realize is a problem until it's too late.

I'll give you an example. A lot of people believe that flirting is harmless (Even if they're married to somebody else). The problem is that when people start flirting it can gradually increase to the point where there are real feelings of temptation that may be far beyond anything either party is prepared for. Did they do this on purpose? No, not necessarily. Are they deceiving themselves consciously? Not in this example, and yet it can happen, and it happens because people are unaware of the possible outcomes.


Again, I don't know chuck. If he's not a scumbag, that's terrific. If he cheated, he committed a scummy act and it is NOT Susan's fault.


See #2 above.

Nobody has said that Susan was to blame, as if somehow she did someting that inevitably led to Chuck's fall from grace. I was listening to a radio show this morning on the way to work and the commentator was making the same argument you are, that Dr. Laura was somehow blaming the wife. This isn't the case and it's aggravating because it reflects a cultural aspect we have where once somebody commits an act of infidelity, the only solution is to castigate the cheater to satisfy emotional outrage without actually examining the root causes.



Sure there are complications for any decision involving more than one person. But the solution is to not wait to become all communication-minded until after the affair. Put your pride away and talk to one another, for fuck's sake. THAT's the simple part that is the tragedy to ignore.


You and I agree on the value of communication. The problem is that most people dojn't have that perspective. We're ahead of the curve in this way.


When did anyone say it was easy? Sometimes the best thing to do is also the hardest thing to do. That doesn't make it any less right.


I disagree IF it's a case where the problem can be solved internally. If it can't, then yes I agree with you.


The difference is remorse, recurrence, and sincerity. Some people, let's face it, really ARE scumbags. Those who aren't will most likely manage to get through and heal the damage that infidelity causes, but even some non-scumbags will have to deal with the end of a relationship.


I don't think the non-scumbags are necessarily likely to get through it. I'll revisit Chuck and Susan once more to try and illustrate what I mean.

When Chuck cheated on Susan, his reasons were stupid and there wasn't anything in this case that Susan could have done differently to have made it less likely to happen. Chuck cheated with an old flame that, at first, he was spending time with in what he believed was a non-romantic context. He wasn't deceiving himself, he was just inexperienced and foolish. By the time the situation heated up to the point that he realized what he was doing, it was beyond his self-control to stop. We can talk a good talk about how all he had to do was look at his wedding band but the fact is there's a certain threshold of temptation that each person cannot go back once they've crossed, and Chuck had crossed it without realizing.

At that point, the ability to heal the relationship wasn't on Chuck's shoulders alone. Yes, he had to be sincere, remorseful and willing to make changes as necessary to do his part, but Susan had a role as well. She had to be willing to work through her anger and grief in an open and honest way. She refused to do this. Instead she held onto it and used it as a club to beat Chuck with whenever they had an argument. Her resentment toward him made her unwilling to communicate with him openly, unwilling to compromoise on other issues that arose over th enext few years, and used her status as a 'victim' to gain sympathy from others at Chuck's expense.

Was that part Susan't fault? Yes. It was unfair that she was put in that position, but that's what makes cheating such a shitty thing to do. It forces the cheated-on spouse to take part in the job of fixing things when they shouldn't have had to. Susan was unwilling to do what was necessary to truly get past it all, and that was beyond Chuck's control.


Bullshit. Bullshit twice.

What Intangelon said.

And quintuple bullshit on that last bit. No, there are not special things that a man needs from a woman, nor are there special things that a woman needs from a man. No, it wouldn't justify cheating even if there were. And no, womens' needs in a marriage are not talked about constantly while male needs are ignored. That has never been anything even remotely approaching true, ever. It's only in the last generation or so that women's needs in a marriage have even been a serious topic of discussion, and that's pretty much because now women are legally and financially able to LEAVE if a marriage sucks ass.

We seem to be operating off of two very difference sources. I'm actually glad that I hear a lot about the needs a wife has, because it has helped me to become a better husband to my wife. As a man, it's not always apparent to me what my wife needs form me emotionally, so I do h ave to make an effort to learn and understand. I'm also blessed with a wife who will come out and tell me when I'm not getting it right.

We seem to be operating off of two very difference sources. I'm actually glad that I hear a lot about the needs a wife has, because it has helped me to become a better husband to my wife. As a man, it's not always apparent to me what my wife needs form me emotionally, so I do have to make an effort to learn and understand. I'm also blessed with a wife who will come out and tell me when I'm not getting it right.
Don't concern yourself with what needs "a wife" might have. Concern yourself only with what YOUR WIFE needs. And know that not all women or all wives will have the same needs. The worst possible thing you could do would be to assume that your wife must have certain needs because she is a woman or because she is a wife. As you are blessed with a wife who talks to you about what she needs, all you have to worry about is listening to her! :D

Personally, I loathe everything that we hear about what a wife needs or what a husband needs. Perhaps that's because nearly everything that a wife supposedly needs sounds like crap to me. Perhaps it's because most of the things people claim a husband needs also sound like crap to me, and I wouldn't want to put up with anybody who needed such things. Most likely it's because it's all the same gendered bunk that I've been hearing my whole life, and it doesn't sound any truer when you use "wife" and "husband" instead of "woman" and "man."

But hey, if you'd like to post a list of things that are innate Husbandly needs, and a list of things that are innate Wifely needs, have a go at it.

Don't concern yourself with what needs "a wife" might have. Concern yourself only with what YOUR WIFE needs. And know that not all women or all wives will have the same needs. The worst possible thing you could do would be to assume that your wife must have certain needs because she is a woman or because she is a wife. As you are blessed with a wife who talks to you about what she needs, all you have to worry about is listening to her! :D

Personally, I loathe everything that we hear about what a wife needs or what a husband needs. Perhaps that's because nearly everything that a wife supposedly needs sounds like crap to me. Perhaps it's because most of the things people claim a husband needs also sound like crap to me, and I wouldn't want to put up with anybody who needed such things. Most likely it's because it's all the same gendered bunk that I've been hearing my whole life, and it doesn't sound any truer when you use "wife" and "husband" instead of "woman" and "man."

But hey, if you'd like to post a list of things that are innate Husbandly needs, and a list of things that are innate Wifely needs, have a go at it.

Fair enough.

Which, of course, gets back to that which I believe is the single most important element of any relationship: Communication.

(A lesson I learned the hard way from a failed marriage.)

And who is Dr. Laura to criticize another woman for not sexually satisfying her husband?

Does anyone pay her 5,000 dollars a night for hot sex? I bet she's as frigid and joyless as a blowup doll.

And who is Dr. Laura to criticize another woman for not sexually satisfying her husband?

Does anyone pay her 5,000 dollars a night for hot sex? I bet she's as frigid and joyless as a blowup doll.

That's what I was wondering anyway... $ 4,000 for one night? That must have been one hell of a shag!
Seriously, I cannot think of anything I could do that would be worth $ 4,000! :eek:

That's what I was wondering anyway... $ 4,000 for one night? That must have been one hell of a shag!
Seriously, I cannot think of anything I could do that would be worth $ 4,000! :eek:

I'm not even sure my honeymoon in Cancun cost that much...

That's what I was wondering anyway... $ 4,000 for one night? That must have been one hell of a shag!
Seriously, I cannot think of anything I could do that would be worth $ 4,000! :eek:

It's not what you'd do, it's what you wouldn't do. Namely, tell.

My Chuck and Susan story is a true one, and one I was close enough to to see it happen every step of the way. You guys would probably say that Chuck is just a scumbag, plain and simple. I know the situation to be not so nearly that simple. I wish it were. I wish Chuck could have been written off as a simple selfish scumbag because it would have made the whole thing easier to deal with.

When it comes right down to it, when he decided to cheat rather than end the relationship, then he became (by my standards anyways) a selfish scumbag. He had other, better options which he chose not to take.

What Intangelon said.

And quintuple bullshit on that last bit. No, there are not special things that a man needs from a woman, nor are there special things that a woman needs from a man. No, it wouldn't justify cheating even if there were. And no, womens' needs in a marriage are not talked about constantly while male needs are ignored. That has never been anything even remotely approaching true, ever. It's only in the last generation or so that women's needs in a marriage have even been a serious topic of discussion, and that's pretty much because now women are legally and financially able to LEAVE if a marriage sucks ass.

Actually that isn't quite right. For as long as there have been women's magazines there has been open discussion about women's needs in marriages. Somewhere I have a 1955 article from Good Housekeeping that gives all kinds of clues about how to get your needs met and make your marriage better. McCalls, Redbook, Good Housekeeping, etc have been around for decades. Not to mention women are much more inclined to discuss such things with other women, every been to a quilting bee with 70 year old great grandmas? They have plenty to say and always have, that hasn't come about in just the last generation.

One thing men have not had is an outlet of that sort to openly criticize what women do or don't do in a marriage. Society still considers them whiners if they do even today. They do not discuss with each other their marital issues with the exception of the infamous "I'm not getting enough". Yet this is hardly the only issue men have in marriages. I have two adult sons, to learn about women in relationships, they read Cosmo. They say it is a great source. Kinda sad that they don't have a comparable place to find men's issues for marriages/relationships.

Society does like to act like men don't or shouldn't have any issues.

From experience, I would have to say that men do have special needs in a marriage/relationship, just as women do. To ignore that is inviting trouble. And I speak from both sides on this, as I have been the cheater and the victim. In both instances both parties contributed to the infidelity, albiet one was unknowingly...also in both instances. That is a communication problem equally in both corners. jmho

Vermillion Alert?

No, the fellow seems to have retreated. Condition: Xanthic.

Actually that isn't quite right.

Dude, read the sentence you bolded.

"And no, womens' needs in a marriage are not talked about constantly while male needs are ignored."

Can you spot the problem with your post now?


One thing men have not had is an outlet of that sort to openly criticize what women do or don't do in a marriage.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...


I have two adult sons, to learn about women in relationships, they read Cosmo. They say it is a great source. Kinda sad that they don't have a comparable place to find men's issues for marriages/relationships.

Oh sweet mercy, STOP THEM. Cosmo is probably the worst possible source for learning about women that they could find. Seriously, it's worse than Playboy. You might as well have them learn about women from a lying cheating fraud like Dr. Laura.

Unless you want your sons to grow up to be insipid sexist morons, you need to get them better reading material. Fast.


Society does like to act like men don't or shouldn't have any issues.

I don't know what society you live in, but it don't work that way in the USA.

I'm honestly amazed that anybody is even trying to make this kind of claim. LOOK AT THE TOPIC YOU ARE IN. Dr. Laura is a woman who has built her entire career on telling women that they are responsible for pretty much everything that happens in a marriage, and on blaming women whenever a man is unhappy. She has gotten rich peddling this BS. She is (sickeningly) a very mainstream personality. It is laughable to try to claim that nobody is worried about poor men and their needs, when people like Dr. Laura make gazillions of dollars talking about how a woman's entire purpose in life is to find a man and service his needs forever and ever.


From experience, I would have to say that men do have special needs in a marriage/relationship, just as women do. To ignore that is inviting trouble.

Stop being vague, then. List the supposed "special needs" that men have, as opposed to those that women have.

OK bottle, let me ask straight out, with the exception of discussion about sex, and how to sexually satisfy a partner, and the outlet in normal media of the stereotypical husband whining about his unsatisfying sex life...can you name one common, mainstream source that discusses a male's needs in the relationship?

Now, you make a point that men are different and even if such a discussion existed, it probably wouldn't do much help, I just want to know if they exist. Because I can find a dozen publications talking about woman's needs in a relationship, how to satisfy them, how to recognize them, how to improve them (whether this is good information or bad is not really relevant to my question).

Can you mention to me some comparable sources that discuss in any depth the non sexual needs of men in relationships? Because I'm with the other poster here, I haven't seen many. Maybe you can point some out to me.

... I have two adult sons, to learn about women in relationships, they read Cosmo. ...

Cosmo? To learn about real women? .... Words fail me.

When it comes right down to it, when he decided to cheat rather than end the relationship, then he became (by my standards anyways) a selfish scumbag. He had other, better options which he chose not to take.

The problem is that's a line you can't so esaily define. When you say "when he decided to cheat" at what point along the way do you mean?

Do you mean when he decided to start spending time around his old flame?

Do you mean when he decided meet up with her that fateful night so they could talk?

Do you mean when she kissed him and he didn't immediately put her out of the car?

Do you mean when his hormones were fully fired up and he became aroused?

Do you mean the moment he undid his pants?

(Can you tell I've heard this story ad nauseam?)

Because I can assure you at no time did Chuck say to himself "I'm gonna cheat on Susan now." I bet everybody posting on this thread knows how it is when your thinking becomes clouded and things that never made sense before suddenly become very logical indeed, only to revert back afterward.

My point here is that Chuck made a series of bad moves which led to his ultimate fall, but at no time was he deliberately setting out to do what he did, and he ESPECIALLY didn't want to hurt Susan.

That's what I mean when I talk about education. Knowing the problems and warning signs early enough that one can avoid trouble before they get past the point of thinking rationally.

Can you mention to me some comparable sources that discuss in any depth the non sexual needs of men in relationships? Because I'm with the other poster here, I haven't seen many. Maybe you can point some out to me.

They don't exist. Other than stand-up comics mentioning such things, it's considered laughable to assert that a man has any non-sexual needs in a relationship.

They don't exist. Other than stand-up comics mentioning such things, it's considered laughable to assert that a man has any non-sexual needs in a relationship.

I'm finding myself in agreement. I'm going over everything I can think of in my head and it all seems to exclusively deal with sex: how to get it, who to get it from, how to do it. I kept thinking "surely there's at least a few," but I'm coming up empty-handed.

And given the "men are only after sex" stereotype, I can't say I'm surprised.

OK bottle, let me ask straight out, with the exception of discussion about sex, and how to sexually satisfy a partner, and the outlet in normal media of the stereotypical husband whining about his unsatisfying sex life...can you name one common, mainstream source that discusses a male's needs in the relationship?

-The odious "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."
-Maxim magazine
-Gary Smalley
-MSNBC (Some of their recent articles include, "Why it’s OK to settle for Mr. Good Enough," which instructs women to settle for dull, unattractive men because having a loser to take care of is better than having no husband at all.)
-The MSN Lifestyle section
-The Washington Post
-Cosmo (according to their website, this month's issue has an article entitled, "What Makes Men Fall in Love," and no, it's not all about sex.)
-Dr. Laura
-Dr. Phil
-Forbes
-AskMen.com (Run by IGN)
-YahooHealth.com

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

Now, mind you, I think most of these sources are crap. But that's because I think the entire idea of "men's needs" (as separated from "women's needs") is crap. I think PEOPLE have relationship needs, but which needs a person has isn't determined by their gender any more than it is determined by their shoe size.


Now, you make a point that men are different and even if such a discussion existed, it probably wouldn't do much help, I just want to know if they exist. Because I can find a dozen publications talking about woman's needs in a relationship, how to satisfy them, how to recognize them, how to improve them (whether this is good information or bad is not really relevant to my question).

Can you mention to me some comparable sources that discuss in any depth the non sexual needs of men in relationships? Because I'm with the other poster here, I haven't seen many. Maybe you can point some out to me.
I couldn't avoid hearing about "men's needs" if I tried. And I have tried, but long since given up.

Don't get me wrong, I hear about "women's needs" plenty, too. It's usually just as wrong as all the crap about how men just need sex to be happy.

They don't exist. Other than stand-up comics mentioning such things, it's considered laughable to assert that a man has any non-sexual needs in a relationship.
Bunk.

Here's some of the common "male needs" that are tossed around:

Men need to feel big and strong.
Men need to feel powerful.
Men need to protect somebody (preferably a woman).
Men need independence and freedom within a relationship.
Men need to feel in control.
Men need to be pampered (have food cooked for them, house cleaned for them, etc).
Men need women to teach them how to be civilized.

Again, please note that I think all of the above are just sexist self-serving claims. But they're examples of non-sexual male needs that I hear about all the time. Heck, read Dr. Laura, the subject of this thread. She's all about telling women how they must make their man feel big and strong by taking a submissive role in the relationship. She flat-out states that women who out-perform their partners professionally are "castrating" their men, because men also need to feel superior to their female partners or else their tender male ego will collapse.

Bunk.

Here's some of the common "male needs" that are tossed around:

Men need to feel big and strong.
Men need to feel powerful.
Men need to protect somebody (preferably a woman).
Men need independence and freedom within a relationship.
Men need to feel in control.
Men need to be pampered (have food cooked for them, house cleaned for them, etc).
Men need women to teach them how to be civilized.


Bunk. Those are merely stereotypes, and you're believing them. How about some real needs? Eh? Can't find them I bet.

Bunk. Those are merely stereotypes, and you're believing them. How about some real needs? Eh? Can't find them I bet.

pay attention

that is bottle's point.

pay attention

that is bottle's point.

My point is that there are no real discussions of real male needs.

My point is that there are no real discussions of real male needs.

And her's is that there are no "male" or "female" needs, they're just gender stereotypes.

... because men also need to feel superior to their female partners or else their tender male ego will collapse.

I've always found it amusing that we're supposed to be big, strong Men and yet have egos that are more fragile than a glass sculpture...

Dude, read the sentence you bolded.

"And no, womens' needs in a marriage are not talked about constantly while male needs are ignored."

Can you spot the problem with your post now?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...


Oh sweet mercy, STOP THEM. Cosmo is probably the worst possible source for learning about women that they could find. Seriously, it's worse than Playboy. You might as well have them learn about women from a lying cheating fraud like Dr. Laura.

Unless you want your sons to grow up to be insipid sexist morons, you need to get them better reading material. Fast.


I don't know what society you live in, but it don't work that way in the USA.

I'm honestly amazed that anybody is even trying to make this kind of claim. LOOK AT THE TOPIC YOU ARE IN. Dr. Laura is a woman who has built her entire career on telling women that they are responsible for pretty much everything that happens in a marriage, and on blaming women whenever a man is unhappy. She has gotten rich peddling this BS. She is (sickeningly) a very mainstream personality. It is laughable to try to claim that nobody is worried about poor men and their needs, when people like Dr. Laura make gazillions of dollars talking about how a woman's entire purpose in life is to find a man and service his needs forever and ever.


Stop being vague, then. List the supposed "special needs" that men have, as opposed to those that women have.

You stated that it was only in the last generation that women's needs were discussed. It's only in the last generation or so that women's needs in a marriage have even been a serious topic of discussion

I don't agree with you. It is that simple.

This is my opinion, I said that. In my opinion your comments that there has "never" been such a thing is nonsense. Maybe not in your lifetime but certainly in mine it has been so. Your generalized statements that men's issues are not ignored simply is not true.

Look I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you. My contribution was simply that for all the rants on here about how cheating is scum etc, etc. There is no way it is as simple as many of you claim it is. The act is unethical, certainly. But promises are made, expectations exist on both sides. Expectations not being met is the number one reason people have affairs. The search for what is missing. And there are absolutely no innocent parties, there are however unknowingly guilty parties. Many women are so self involved or so totally involved with family, they don't have a clue what they are doing wrong.

Men are ignored at home, don't kid yourself that they aren't. I know, I have seduced more than one. So yeah, at one time I was that ebil thing that paid attention to a man's needs when a wife/girlfriend was too self involved to do so. (And no, we are not talking about just sexual needs.) Don't tell me or this audience it isn't so, because it certainly is so. And not too terribly difficult to do if really want the truth of the matter.

Men are much more fragile (their egos) than women and they are much easier flattered. They also crave someone to listen to them and be in their corner, help them understand their emotions etc. So that wife/mate that is at home nagging her man is asking him to look around. And when he does, he sees a me out there. Yeah it means pay attention to what you are saying to him, not just a little bit either. A smart woman has her atennea up all the time, not just when they are dating. The difference is that while we women don't generally have to be continually courted after marriage, a man actually does need that. Do you really think all those articles about keeping the 'excitement' in a marriage are about how to keep it exciting for the woman? LOL No, they are for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man.

I am not proud of what I have done in my life. (Chalk it up to youth.) I realize it was wrong ethically and we learn from our mistakes. But, to sit and say that men don't have special needs is naive at best.

Oh and Dr. Laura is not completely wrong or alone in her thoughts. Have you ever read "The Total Woman" by Marabel Morgan? She has been saying much the same thing for generations. Dr. Laura's thoughts are hardly a new or original concept. What it boils down to is people have to figure out what works in their relationships, which means addressing everyones issues, which means acknowledging each party has some and they are of equal importance...and are NOT the same.

I am not trying to make anyone angry here, but I would genuinely appreciate if you are going to reply at least do so with some respect and dignity please.

My point is that there are no real discussions of real male needs.

thats why you should pay attention.

thats why you should pay attention.

I think Bottle thinks that male needs are discussed all the time, and that she believes that men have real, sexist needs.

Needs?

You have wants and survival instincts.

There is no such thing as "needs". It's nonsense made up to make people emotionally greedy!

I think Bottle thinks that male needs are discussed all the time, and that she believes that men have real, sexist needs.

I think you need to re-read what Bottle has written.

The problem is that's a line you can't so esaily define. When you say "when he decided to cheat" at what point along the way do you mean?

Do you mean when he decided to start spending time around his old flame?

Do you mean when he decided meet up with her that fateful night so they could talk?

Do you mean when she kissed him and he didn't immediately put her out of the car?

Do you mean when his hormones were fully fired up and he became aroused?

Do you mean the moment he undid his pants?

Yes to all, if he met up with his 'old flame' without the knowledge of his wife then he was cheating.
Were there mitigating cicumstances? Undoubtedly so. Do they excuse his actions at all? No, they don't (at least not to me).

I understand what you're saying, but to me, anytime one member of a relationship cheats, they are to me scum, if they weren't 'happy' they should have ended the relationship or worked on 'fixing' it, not gone out and cheated.

I think Bottle thinks that male needs are discussed all the time, and that she believes that men have real, sexist needs.

again, that is why you should pay attention.

That statement is ludicrous, and what would happen if it was turned around?
That men make women cheat?
Do you know what kind of upstart that would cause?
A HELL OF A ONE.

I understand what you're saying, but to me, anytime one member of a relationship cheats, they are to me scum, if they weren't 'happy' they should have ended the relationship or worked on 'fixing' it, not gone out and cheated.

That is exactly right. The issue is communication most of all. Dr. Phil even states that if you want something fixed inside a relationship, you will not find the answer outside of it.

Though the reality is that many people look outside first. It is almost like they have to before they hit bottom, sometimes that hitting bottom brings them around to realize what is genuinely important in their lives. Sometimes we lose that sight sadly. Sometimes it can be repaired, and sometimes not.

That is exactly right. The issue is communication most of all. Dr. Phil even states that if you want something fixed inside a relationship, you will not find the answer outside of it.

Though the reality is that many people look outside first. It is almost like they have to before they hit bottom, sometimes that hitting bottom brings them around to realize what is genuinely important in their lives. Sometimes we lose that sight sadly. Sometimes it can be repaired, and sometimes not.

Hey, do I get a gold star?

That is exactly right. The issue is communication most of all. Dr. Phil even states that if you want something fixed inside a relationship, you will not find the answer outside of it.

Though the reality is that many people look outside first. It is almost like they have to before they hit bottom, sometimes that hitting bottom brings them around to realize what is genuinely important in their lives. Sometimes we lose that sight sadly. Sometimes it can be repaired, and sometimes not.

**realizes someone just quoted Dr. Phil as an authority**

**shoots self in head**

**realizes someone just quoted Dr. Phil as an authority**

**shoots self in head**

Well, in this case he's at least reasonable.

Hey, do I get a gold star?

Sure.

If I knew how to link one to ya I would. :p

Sure.

If I knew how to link one to ya I would. :p

*gives self gold star on behalf of Pelecanus*

http://bksschoolhouse.com/cart-imgs/prod13608_lg.jpg

That is exactly right. The issue is communication most of all. Dr. Phil even states that if you want something fixed inside a relationship, you will not find the answer outside of it.

Though the reality is that many people look outside first. It is almost like they have to before they hit bottom, sometimes that hitting bottom brings them around to realize what is genuinely important in their lives. Sometimes we lose that sight sadly. Sometimes it can be repaired, and sometimes not.

Key word being "even"...as in many times he is a overblown gas bag...but in this case he is on to something.

*gives self gold star on behalf of Pelecanus*

http://bksschoolhouse.com/cart-imgs/prod13608_lg.jpg

Yay!!!!!

Yay!!!!!

Google images and the image button are your friends :D

Google images and the image button are your friends :D

Noted!

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/proppie/goldstar.jpg


*crosses fingers hoping this works*

YAY!!! Thanks for the lesson!

Noted!

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/proppie/goldstar.jpg


*crosses fingers hoping this works*

YAY!!! Thanks for the lesson!

No problem. :)

Can you mention to me some comparable sources that discuss in any depth the non sexual needs of men in relationships? Because I'm with the other poster here, I haven't seen many. Maybe you can point some out to me.

I don't know, or care, about other men, but a woman I'm in a relationship has to be a freind as well. Sex is good, and of course plays a large part, but for me so does freindship. I need to be able to talk to her, enjoy her company, have her talk back, conversation. If she's great in bed but is incredibly boring to talk with I don't want a relationship with her.

If she can cook and clean for me (Because I am a slob) then awesome, especially if she wants to. If she's great in bed, awesome! If she wants to make me feel big and strong and like her protector, awesome! But if she doesn't want to have intelligent conversation, she's not someone I want.

Besides, it's my nature to be protective (I'm a very viloent man by nature, better to direct that into good things like protection), so I will be anyway, even if she doesn't need it. Which is all the better for me because if she doesn't need it then her and I can laugh when that crap comes up!

But no conversation = no relationship.

-The odious "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."



Rant time.


My fiance's therapist told her to read that book some odd years ago (before we were dating) because it would help her with her relationship problems. Fast foward a few years. She hadnt read it yet, but one of her friends told her she really should because its "so insightful into how men think and stuff", so she bought it (we are dating now) read it.


So help me God, if she uses that book as a source one more fucking time to explain why I act the way I do or why sometimes I just dont want to talk about something (if that damn "go into my cave analogy is used again....) I might break something. Seriously, that book is bull. Utter, sexist, gender roll and stereotyping enforcing bull. Combine this guy's PhD with "Dr." Laura, I seriously wonder if there is a college out there that turns out PhD's just for people who are raving sexists so they can go out there and publish things that just reinforce these stupid stereotypes.



ARGH.

Men are much more fragile (their egos) than women and they are much easier flattered. They also crave someone to listen to them and be in their corner, help them understand their emotions etc. So that wife/mate that is at home nagging her man is asking him to look around. And when he does, he sees a me out there. Yeah it means pay attention to what you are saying to him, not just a little bit either. A smart woman has her atennea up all the time, not just when they are dating. The difference is that while we women don't generally have to be continually courted after marriage, a man actually does need that. Do you really think all those articles about keeping the 'excitement' in a marriage are about how to keep it exciting for the woman? LOL No, they are for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man.



Bull. I dont have this fragil little ego that needs stoking every day. Nagging wives/girlfriends are annoying as shit. Thats true. And if they ignore you when you need to have a heart to heart, thats also sucky. But to say that I need to be courted for the rest of my life and have my "manliness" constantly reinforced or Ill run off with another woman is false.

And there are absolutely no innocent parties, there are however unknowingly guilty parties.

Utter nonsense.

The first time my ex cheated on me, it was because he had a chance to have sex with a Barely Legal Teen with big tits. I was an amazingly awesome girlfriend (I was, among other things, literally his slave), but I was over 20 and had normal-sized breasts. Please explain how that made me "guilty" in any way.

Bull. I don't have this fragile little ego that needs stoking every day.

Penis = fragile ego. I am sorry. :( But if you chopped it-off, things might change! :)

Utter nonsense.

The first time my ex cheated on me, it was because he had a chance to have sex with a Barely Legal Teen with big tits. I was an amazingly awesome girlfriend (I was, among other things, literally his slave), but I was over 20 and had normal-sized breasts. Please explain how that made me "guilty" in any way.

Its your fault for not having big titties and aging, dur

Ive had a girlfriend cheat on me because she was horny and I just wasnt at the party that night. And we hadnt been dating that long. Certainly not long enough for me to have been "guilty" of anything. She was just a slut. There are slutty girls out there you know. Just like there are bastards out there too.


Guess thats my fault too...:rolleyes:

Penis = fragile ego. I am sorry. :( But if you chopped it-off, things might change! :)

Again, utter nonsense. It takes a lot to hurt my "ego".

This is my opinion, I said that. In my opinion your comments that there has "never" been such a thing is nonsense. Maybe not in your lifetime but certainly in mine it has been so. Your generalized statements that men's issues are not ignored simply is not true.

Look I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you. My contribution was simply that for all the rants on here about how cheating is scum etc, etc. There is no way it is as simple as many of you claim it is. The act is unethical, certainly. But promises are made, expectations exist on both sides. Expectations not being met is the number one reason people have affairs. The search for what is missing. And there are absolutely no innocent parties, there are however unknowingly guilty parties. Many women are so self involved or so totally involved with family, they don't have a clue what they are doing wrong.

Men are ignored at home, don't kid yourself that they aren't. I know, I have seduced more than one. So yeah, at one time I was that ebil thing that paid attention to a man's needs when a wife/girlfriend was too self involved to do so. (And no, we are not talking about just sexual needs.) Don't tell me or this audience it isn't so, because it certainly is so. And not too terribly difficult to do if really want the truth of the matter.


This is true.

When in a relationship, each person has an obligation to meet the emotional needs of the other. To fail to do so is to set the stage for all sorts of relationship problems, including infidelity. If a wife is inattentive to her husband and later on down the road he cheats on her, is she the one to blame? No. he made his choice. Yet, at the same time she IS part of the problem. There ARE things she needs to do differently to minimize the chances of it happening again. To be stubborn and insist that since it's all his fault he's the one that has to do all the repairs is to ask for it to happen again. Fair or not, that' show it is.

It's like leaving your door unlocked and getting burglarized. Did you commit a crime? No. Are you a fool if you don't learn to lock your door? yes.

And the same does hold true both ways. Although the way we respond to this as a culture shows a level of sexism most ignore. How many times in movies, popular movies, do we see a woman whose needs aren't being met by her man so she winds up shacking up with the hero? Titanic, Pleasantville, American Beauty, Big Fish, just to name a few. Do we condemn the female character for her actions? No, we just blame the ex who was an asshole from square 1.

Not so prevalent when it goes the other way.


Men are much more fragile (their egos) than women and they are much easier flattered. They also crave someone to listen to them and be in their corner, help them understand their emotions etc. So that wife/mate that is at home nagging her man is asking him to look around. And when he does, he sees a me out there. Yeah it means pay attention to what you are saying to him, not just a little bit either. A smart woman has her atennea up all the time, not just when they are dating. The difference is that while we women don't generally have to be continually courted after marriage, a man actually does need that. Do you really think all those articles about keeping the 'excitement' in a marriage are about how to keep it exciting for the woman? LOL No, they are for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man.


This too is true, and I think to some extent this is a behavior that's enabled by a culture that's quick to judge unfaithful men, with terms like scumbag locked and loaded. She knows that if he messes up, he will receive NO sympathy from friends and associates, and she will not be expected to take any responsibility for the state of things. He will be viewed as the villain regardless.

It's like what I said in the story of Chuck and Susan. Once he made his mistake, he was never allowed a legitimate gripe again.

Its your fault for not having big titties and aging, dur

Ive had a girlfriend cheat on me because she was horny and I just wasnt at the party that night. And we hadnt been dating that long. Certainly not long enough for me to have been "guilty" of anything. She was just a slut. There are slutty girls out there you know. Just like there are bastards out there too.


Guess thats my fault too...:rolleyes:

Well, obviously! You weren't meeting her, um, special female needs, one of which was to be constantly present in case she felt like screwing someone. Duh.

Well, obviously! You weren't meeting her, um, special female needs, one of which was to be constantly present in case she felt like screwing someone. Duh.

how you doin?

This too is true, and I think to some extent this is a behavior that's enabled by a culture that's quick to judge unfaithful men, with terms like scumbag locked and loaded. She knows that if he messes up, he will receive NO sympathy from friends and associates, and she will not be expected to take any responsibility for the state of things. He will be viewed as the villain regardless.



Really? If a guy cheats on his girlfriend, his friends will give him rounds of high fives for being a "player" and assume his girl just wasnt "satisfying" him.


A girl cheats and shes a filthy, dirty slut. Guys friends are supportive, sometimes to their detrement. Girls tend to get it the worst when they cheat.


And again, this is just cultural reinforcement. Not all men or women are inhernatly like this.

Well, obviously! You weren't meeting her, um, special female needs, one of which was to be constantly present in case she felt like screwing someone. Duh.


I know Im an awful man :p

Bull. I dont have this fragil little ego that needs stoking every day. Nagging wives/girlfriends are annoying as shit. Thats true. And if they ignore you when you need to have a heart to heart, thats also sucky. But to say that I need to be courted for the rest of my life and have my "manliness" constantly reinforced or Ill run off with another woman is false.

That isn't what I said. You are also very young. Come back when you are 40 and let's see how a 20 year old flirting with you feels to your ego. ;)

This is true.

When in a relationship, each person has an obligation to meet the emotional needs of the other. To fail to do so is to set the stage for all sorts of relationship problems, including infidelity. If a wife is inattentive to her husband and later on down the road he cheats on her, is she the one to blame? No. he made his choice. Yet, at the same time she IS part of the problem. There ARE things she needs to do differently to minimize the chances of it happening again. To be stubborn and insist that since it's all his fault he's the one that has to do all the repairs is to ask for it to happen again. Fair or not, that' show it is.

It's like leaving your door unlocked and getting burglarized. Did you commit a crime? No. Are you a fool if you don't learn to lock your door? yes.

And the same does hold true both ways. Although the way we respond to this as a culture shows a level of sexism most ignore. How many times in movies, popular movies, do we see a woman whose needs aren't being met by her man so she winds up shacking up with the hero? Titanic, Pleasantville, American Beauty, Big Fish, just to name a few. Do we condemn the female character for her actions? No, we just blame the ex who was an asshole from square 1.

Not so prevalent when it goes the other way.



This too is true, and I think to some extent this is a behavior that's enabled by a culture that's quick to judge unfaithful men, with terms like scumbag locked and loaded. She knows that if he messes up, he will receive NO sympathy from friends and associates, and she will not be expected to take any responsibility for the state of things. He will be viewed as the villain regardless.

It's like what I said in the story of Chuck and Susan. Once he made his mistake, he was never allowed a legitimate gripe again.

Yes, you have it exactly.

That isn't what I said. You are also very young. Come back when you are 40 and let's see how a 20 year old flirting with you feels to your ego. ;)

How do you know how old I am? I wouldnt say Im young. Not many would in fact. Surely not "very" young.

Again, utter nonsense. It takes a lot to hurt my "ego".

Wearing a cup helps.

Utter nonsense.

The first time my ex cheated on me, it was because he had a chance to have sex with a Barely Legal Teen with big tits. I was an amazingly awesome girlfriend (I was, among other things, literally his slave), but I was over 20 and had normal-sized breasts. Please explain how that made me "guilty" in any way.

Nobody is saying that every single time it happens that it's because of a mutual problem. I'm speaking genrally. It could be your ex had a proclivity toward teenage girls and no desire/understanding to remedy it. That's clearly not your fault.

The problem is that the vast majority of occurrences aren't so straightforward.

Bull. I dont have this fragil little ego that needs stoking every day. Nagging wives/girlfriends are annoying as shit. Thats true. And if they ignore you when you need to have a heart to heart, thats also sucky. But to say that I need to be courted for the rest of my life and have my "manliness" constantly reinforced or Ill run off with another woman is false.

It's not about being high maintatence. It's about the long term effects of your spouse chipping away ay your patience with the nagging or failing to provide the positives every person should provide to their mate. At some point a guy wonders, even if subconsciously "Am I not worth the effort? Does she not love me or respect me as a human being enough to not do this?" That leads to acting out.

(And yes, that goes in both directions.)

Yes to all, if he met up with his 'old flame' without the knowledge of his wife then he was cheating.
Were there mitigating cicumstances? Undoubtedly so. Do they excuse his actions at all? No, they don't (at least not to me).

I understand what you're saying, but to me, anytime one member of a relationship cheats, they are to me scum, if they weren't 'happy' they should have ended the relationship or worked on 'fixing' it, not gone out and cheated.

IIRC Susan knew where he was, so at first nothing dishonest was going on.

Again, nothing 'excuses' his actions.

You're right that a person who is unhappy in a relationship needs to be proactive in finding a way to deal with it. At the same time, people can be unhappy without realizing the cause of the unhappiness. Most people are not so introspective.

how you doin?

Oddly enough, even though (as we all know) all women have the exact same needs, I've never needed my significant others to follow me around to keep me from cheating on them. Crazy, huh?

And, what's more, I even get the impression that there exist guys who wouldn't cheat on their extremely nice and devoted girlfriends simply because they met a willing big-boobed teenager. Somehow, that's not a universal "male need." Who knew?

Nobody is saying that every single time it happens that it's because of a mutual problem. I'm speaking genrally. It could be your ex had a proclivity toward teenage girls and no desire/understanding to remedy it. That's clearly not your fault.



Im getting the vibe from Pelecanus that its always everyones fault. Im just saying that to say that there is never an innocent party is bull. Clear, total, unexcusable bull.

And, what's more, I even get the impression that there exist guys who wouldn't cheat on their extremely nice and devoted girlfriends simply because they met a willing big-boobed teenager. Somehow, that's not a universal "male need." Who knew?


Bah, shows how much you know about men;)


I kid I kid.

And, what's more, I even get the impression that there exist guys who wouldn't cheat on their extremely nice and devoted girlfriends simply because they met a willing big-boobed teenager. Somehow, that's not a universal "male need." Who knew?Filthy lies...

Oddly enough, even though (as we all know) all women have the exact same needs, I've never needed my significant others to follow me around to keep me from cheating on them. Crazy, huh?

Heh, check your tgs.

And, what's more, I even get the impression that there exist guys who wouldn't cheat on their extremely nice and devoted girlfriends simply because they met a willing big-boobed teenager. Somehow, that's not a universal "male need." Who knew?

You've been misinformed.

Nobody is saying that every single time it happens that it's because of a mutual problem.


Really? No one is saying that? Are you quite sure?

And there are absolutely no innocent parties, there are however unknowingly guilty parties.

Ha. I love that three separate guys immediately had to note their need for big-boobed teenagers. :p

Really? If a guy cheats on his girlfriend, his friends will give him rounds of high fives for being a "player" and assume his girl just wasnt "satisfying" him.


In high school maybe. I can tell you nobody gave Chuck a high five, although we did make a point to stick by him because we knew him well enough not to dismiss him. Nobody felt congratulations were in order, however.


A girl cheats and shes a filthy, dirty slut. Guys friends are supportive, sometimes to their detrement. Girls tend to get it the worst when they cheat.


I'm not so sure. I think that's true in some circles but pop culture is much more understanding of women cheating. See the list of example movies I posted before. Did anybody call Rose a slut for sleeping with Jack in the car on board Titanic?


And again, this is just cultural reinforcement. Not all men or women are inhernatly like this.

I think that's less true than it once was, and to a limited extent.

Interestingly, there are cultures where a husband keeping a mistress is socially acceptable. My dad comes from such a culture. The way he explains it, men have mistresses all the time and as long as it's kept discreet and they stay with their family and take care of them, nobody talks about it. That makes me wonder what the wives think. Presumably they're conditioned to put up with it or somehow remain in a state of denial.

Ha. I love that three separate guys immediately had to note their need for big-boobed teenagers. :p
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I prefer breasts that fit into my hands.
:p

In high school maybe. I can tell you nobody gave Chuck a high five, although we did make a point to stick by him because we knew him well enough not to dismiss him. Nobody felt congratulations were in order, however.

Oh, it happens in college too:p


Interestingly, there are cultures where a husband keeping a mistress is socially acceptable. My dad comes from such a culture. The way he explains it, men have mistresses all the time and as long as it's kept discreet and they stay with their family and take care of them, nobody talks about it. That makes me wonder what the wives think. Presumably they're conditioned to put up with it or somehow remain in a state of denial.

Your dads a mobster?;)

Oddly enough, even though (as we all know) all women have the exact same needs, I've never needed my significant others to follow me around to keep me from cheating on them. Crazy, huh?

Absolutely astounding.


And, what's more, I even get the impression that there exist guys who wouldn't cheat on their extremely nice and devoted girlfriends simply because they met a willing big-boobed teenager. Somehow, that's not a universal "male need." Who knew?

Really? My wife can finally take that leash off of me then.

I'm not so sure. I think that's true in some circles but pop culture is much more understanding of women cheating. See the list of example movies I posted before. Did anybody call Rose a slut for sleeping with Jack in the car on board Titanic?
Is an arranged marriage that hadn't happened yet a good example to be using?

Ha. I love that three separate guys immediately had to note their need for big-boobed teenagers. :p

frankly speaking the size of the boobs are irrelevant. You had me at "willing teenager"

frankly speaking the size of the boobs are irrelevant. You had me at "willing teenager"
Dirty old man...

Dirty old man...

old? I'm probably far closer to being a teenager than being old

old? I'm probably far closer to being a teenager than being oldThat's impossible, since old starts at 20.

Im getting the vibe from Pelecanus that its always everyones fault. Im just saying that to say that there is never an innocent party is bull. Clear, total, unexcusable bull.

Really? No one is saying that? Are you quite sure?

Touche'.

But I do disagree with that assertion, with the caveat that a situation where there there is truly no blame on one side or the other are rare.

That's impossible, since old starts at 20.

In that case...

"Get off my lawn you gorram kids!"

Im getting the vibe from Pelecanus that its always everyones fault. Im just saying that to say that there is never an innocent party is bull. Clear, total, unexcusable bull.


Perhaps fault is a little harsh. What I am trying to say, and I'm sure some will disagree, is that those who cheat many times (not always) do so because they found in someone else something that was not being fullfilled by their mate. I am not talking sexually necessarily, I am talking a genuine connection, that most often starts as friends and grows to emotional connection.

Someone screwing after a party is not what I am talking about, someone having an affair is. Those are two different things. Both unethical of course.

Each party has a part in any affair whether you want to admit that or not. The victim was not fulfilling something or other. Unknowingly like I said earlier. Like that or not, it is true. Most people do not cheat just because some strange looks like fun. Most people cheat because something is missing. I will add that many times those who do cheat don't even really realize what exactly is missing until they find it in someone else. But they do know something is missing or they would be impervious to the temptation. That makes what is missing even more acute.

When expectations are not met, both parties are failing. One in not conveying it properly, and one in not interpretting properly, otherwise there wouldn't be anything missing would it? No. Being in tune with each other is necessary. It means both parties, not just one.

A victim is not innocent simply because he/she was not in tune to their partners needs. Are they injured from an affair...of course. Are they completely exempt from any of the responsibility. No. It is the responsibility of everyone in the relationship to be in tune. Monogamy doesn't happen by accident, it means continual working at it, continual growth in a relationship.

Again it boils down to communication.

Safest bet, never have any expectations...so never get in a relationship because that is an integeral part of them.

If I am being redundant I apologize.

Rant time.


My fiance's therapist told her to read that book some odd years ago (before we were dating) because it would help her with her relationship problems. Fast foward a few years. She hadnt read it yet, but one of her friends told her she really should because its "so insightful into how men think and stuff", so she bought it (we are dating now) read it.


So help me God, if she uses that book as a source one more fucking time to explain why I act the way I do or why sometimes I just dont want to talk about something (if that damn "go into my cave analogy is used again....) I might break something. Seriously, that book is bull. Utter, sexist, gender roll and stereotyping enforcing bull. Combine this guy's PhD with "Dr." Laura, I seriously wonder if there is a college out there that turns out PhD's just for people who are raving sexists so they can go out there and publish things that just reinforce these stupid stereotypes.



ARGH.

oh you poor thing.

if a licensed psychology professional told me to study a book by a guy with no psychology credentials and to use his ideas as a guide to my future relationshiops i think i might sue to get my fees back.

i did once read most of the first chapter of that book but it was just too awful to continue with.

i just tried to look up where he got his phd and what it was in, its from a former diploma mill and seems to have no actual field of study attached to it.

Is an arranged marriage that hadn't happened yet a good example to be using?

Not particularly, but then, that was only one example of several.

Let me ask you this: If Billy Zane's character had been the one cheating, would it being an arragned marriage have made it better?

Oh, it happens in college too:p

Your dads a mobster?;)

I wish... Then I'd have a lot more money...

oh you poor thing.

if a licensed psychology professional told me to study a book by a guy with no psychology credentials and to use his ideas as a guide to my future relationshiops i think i might sue to get my fees back.

i did once read most of the first chapter of that book but it was just too awful to continue with.

i just tried to look up where he got his phd and what it was in, its from a former diploma mill and seems to have no actual field of study attached to it.

Wasn't it originally published by a vanity press?

Luckily, I've never had the misfortune of being subjected to that accursed tome. I did have to read "You Just Don't Understand" by *mind comes up blank* Though at least she had actual credentials.

Not particularly, but then, that was only one example of several.

Let me ask you this: If Billy Zane's character had been the one cheating, would it being an arragned marriage have made it better?No, but that is largely irrelevant, because it's an arranged marriage that hasn't become a marriage yet.

No, but that is largely irrelevant, because it's an arranged marriage that hasn't become a marriage yet.

But they WERE engaged.

Unless you're suggesting that cheating on a fiancee' is okay.

Look I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you. My contribution was simply that for all the rants on here about how cheating is scum etc, etc. There is no way it is as simple as many of you claim it is. The act is unethical, certainly. But promises are made, expectations exist on both sides. Expectations not being met is the number one reason people have affairs. The search for what is missing.

So far, no problem.


And there are absolutely no innocent parties, there are however unknowingly guilty parties.

Wrong. Flat out wrong.

I am not in any way guilty if my partner chooses to cheat on me. He is responsible for his own behavior. If his expectations and needs are not being met, there are plenty of non-asshole ways to deal with that. Including ending the relationship. Cheating is an asshole move. If he chooses to be an asshole, the fault is 100% his.


Many women are so self involved or so totally involved with family, they don't have a clue what they are doing wrong.

And cheating on them is still assholish, no matter how wrong they may be.


Men are ignored at home, don't kid yourself that they aren't.

"Men" are not ignored at home, any more than "women" are ignored at home. Some PEOPLE are ignored at home, and some of those people are male while others are female. Many people of both genders are not ignored at home.


I know, I have seduced more than one. So yeah, at one time I was that ebil thing that paid attention to a man's needs when a wife/girlfriend was too self involved to do so. (And no, we are not talking about just sexual needs.) Don't tell me or this audience it isn't so, because it certainly is so. And not too terribly difficult to do if really want the truth of the matter.

Oh look, another woman who has a history of affairs with married men is eager to tell us all how cheating is really the fault of the woman who WASN'T cheating. Surprise surprise.


Men are much more fragile (their egos) than women and they are much easier flattered. They also crave someone to listen to them and be in their corner, help them understand their emotions etc.

Bullshit. You, apparently, seek out insecure, self-involved jackasses who can't talk to the women they married. Having decided to have relationships with cheaters, you proceed to believe the cheaters when they tell you that their wives are bitches. When the man who is cheating on his wife with you tells you all about how she is insensitive and self-absorbed, you actually buy it, and convince yourself that YOU are much better than those frigid old nags.

I'm sure you also believe the cheaters when they tell you that you are special, and they can open up to you in ways they couldn't open up to anybody else before.


So that wife/mate that is at home nagging her man is asking him to look around.

No, she's asking him to either do his chores and pull his weight, or leave. If he finds that her standards are unreasonable to him, then he should leave.


And when he does, he sees a me out there.

I don't know if you really should be proud of the fact that you attract men who like to cheat.


Yeah it means pay attention to what you are saying to him, not just a little bit either. A smart woman has her atennea up all the time, not just when they are dating.

Translation: stop asking your man to do things, because if you have standards he'll leave you for a woman who doesn't have standards.


The difference is that while we women don't generally have to be continually courted after marriage, a man actually does need that.

Funny, that's the OPPOSITE of what all the diamond commercials and TV specials tell me. See, it's really us tender emotional women who constantly need to be given flowers and jewels so that we know we're oh-so-special. And we're the ones who need pink and red crap thrown at us every February 14th, because we're tender and cuddly like that.

I guess you pick your sexist bullshit based on what you're trying to justify, hmm?


Do you really think all those articles about keeping the 'excitement' in a marriage are about how to keep it exciting for the woman? LOL No, they are for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man.

I'd just like to point this out for all the people claiming that "men's needs" in a relationship are always neglected.

I guess they're always neglected except for "all those articles about keeping the excitement in a marriage," which are always "for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man."


I am not proud of what I have done in my life. (Chalk it up to youth.) I realize it was wrong ethically and we learn from our mistakes. But, to sit and say that men don't have special needs is naive at best.

You've yet to present a single special "male" need. All you've done is share the fact that you, personally, tend to seek out relationships with insecure men who like to cheat on their wives.


Oh and Dr. Laura is not completely wrong or alone in her thoughts. Have you ever read "The Total Woman" by Marabel Morgan? She has been saying much the same thing for generations. Dr. Laura's thoughts are hardly a new or original concept.

Again I'd like to point this out for the people claiming that men's needs are never given attention. Here we have somebody who isn't Bottle reminding us that these notions have been around "for generations" are "are hardly a new or original concept."

Which is precisely what I've been saying all along. This bunk isn't new bunk. It's very, very old bunk.


What it boils down to is people have to figure out what works in their relationships, which means addressing everyones issues, which means acknowledging each party has some and they are of equal importance...and are NOT the same.

Sure. And assuming that your partner's needs are determined by his maleness is, frankly, the kind of thinking that will lead you to have lots of failed relationships with men who cheat.


I am not trying to make anyone angry here, but I would genuinely appreciate if you are going to reply at least do so with some respect and dignity please.
Meh. I'd appreciate if people would knock it off with the constant unsupported sexist BS. We can't always get what we want.

No, the fellow seems to have retreated. Condition: Xanthic.

Amarillic, even?

I'm gonna put a couple things at the top of this post for ease of reference, because it seems to me like you guys are talking past my point.

1)NOBODY is justifying cheaters. I've said it before and I'll say it again because you guys are rpelying as if that's what is happening.
2)NOBODY is 'blaming the cheated-on spouse.' Taking a realistic look at the root causes of a problem isn't the same as assigning blame.

Fair enough. Apologies for diving too far into that end of the pool.

It's not a question of self-deception. When I say education I'm talking about helping people to recognize when they're getting into a situation that they may not realize is a problem until it's too late.

Honestly, I can imagine that there are people out there who are so stupid that they can't figure out that they're "getting into a situation" when they flirt or set up meetings with exes or what have you. I just can't imagine that they can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

I'll give you an example. A lot of people believe that flirting is harmless (Even if they're married to somebody else). The problem is that when people start flirting it can gradually increase to the point where there are real feelings of temptation that may be far beyond anything either party is prepared for. Did they do this on purpose? No, not necessarily. Are they deceiving themselves consciously? Not in this example, and yet it can happen, and it happens because people are unaware of the possible outcomes.

Real feelings of temptation is where it needs to stop, then, and where one should realize that "innocent flirting" when married is the least slippery portion of a slop coated in axle grease. Other than that, you are very close to the Shariya law interpretation of women -- that they (even their exposed ankles) somehow affect someone's judgment so badly that they are no longer responsible for their deeds. And that's just 100% bullshit.

Nobody has said that Susan was to blame, as if somehow she did someting that inevitably led to Chuck's fall from grace. I was listening to a radio show this morning on the way to work and the commentator was making the same argument you are, that Dr. Laura was somehow blaming the wife. This isn't the case and it's aggravating because it reflects a cultural aspect we have where once somebody commits an act of infidelity, the only solution is to castigate the cheater to satisfy emotional outrage without actually examining the root causes.

Okay, before I continue the rally by volleying again, let me stop and say that I think I agree with you here. However, it's a fine line between "the wife wasn't meeting certain needs" and "it's therefore no surprise she got cheated on" -- and that line is crossed WAY too frequently. Here's the part where we agree: COMMUNICATION. Example: If I let my wife know that sex once a month isn't enough and she tells me to piss off and deal with it, we have a problem and it needs to be discussed. If it can't (or won't) be duscussed, then it becomes an irreconcilable difference, and thus potential grounds for divorce.

You and I agree on the value of communication. The problem is that most people don't have that perspective. We're ahead of the curve in this way.

Amen. Thing is, I sure as hell didn't get to the head of the curve by not making mistakes. I made plenty, and I learned from them. Hell, one woman I was with thought I communicated too much (I suppose there is something alluring about mystery, but that's another fine line, I suppose).

I disagree IF it's a case where the problem can be solved internally. If it can't, then yes I agree with you.

Of course. Any problem should be looked at for internal solutions before anything else is tried.

I don't think the non-scumbags are necessarily likely to get through it. I'll revisit Chuck and Susan once more to try and illustrate what I mean.

When Chuck cheated on Susan, his reasons were stupid and there wasn't anything in this case that Susan could have done differently to have made it less likely to happen. Chuck cheated with an old flame that, at first, he was spending time with in what he believed was a non-romantic context. He wasn't deceiving himself, he was just inexperienced and foolish. By the time the situation heated up to the point that he realized what he was doing, it was beyond his self-control to stop.

Spending time is one thing -- I'm friends with a few of my exes. It's the bolded part that sticks in my throat. I don't think you're suggesting that men as a whole cannot control their urges, but...well...are you? 'Cause I have to call BS on that. Once you realize that sex is a possibility, THAT's where looking at the wedding band comes in. There are any number of points where Chuck could have looked himself in the mirror and asked "what am I doing"? If he did that but ignored the answer or lied to himself, I have no sympathy. Someone who can see only others' flesh when they're married, and can't seem to remind themselves that they're married probably shouldn't be married.

We can talk a good talk about how all he had to do was look at his wedding band but the fact is there's a certain threshold of temptation that each person cannot go back once they've crossed, and Chuck had crossed it without realizing.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to agree to disagree here. We are not animals. Life is not a Hollywood movie. I fail to see how a man can be THAT devoid of personal control and responsibility. I don't deny it happens, but I tend to think a bit less of those married men who give in.

At that point, the ability to heal the relationship wasn't on Chuck's shoulders alone. Yes, he had to be sincere, remorseful and willing to make changes as necessary to do his part, but Susan had a role as well. She had to be willing to work through her anger and grief in an open and honest way. She refused to do this. Instead she held onto it and used it as a club to beat Chuck with whenever they had an argument. Her resentment toward him made her unwilling to communicate with him openly, unwilling to compromoise on other issues that arose over th enext few years, and used her status as a 'victim' to gain sympathy from others at Chuck's expense.

Was that part Susan't fault? Yes. It was unfair that she was put in that position, but that's what makes cheating such a shitty thing to do. It forces the cheated-on spouse to take part in the job of fixing things when they shouldn't have had to. Susan was unwilling to do what was necessary to truly get past it all, and that was beyond Chuck's control.

On this point, we agree. But how Susan reacts after being cheated on has nothing to do with why Chuck cheated. If Susan was genuinely interested in saving the marriage, and not, as is popularly portrayed, interested in holding the infidelity over Chuck's head in order to live in a marriage that equates to a master-servant relationship, then she should have sincerely and wholeheartedly forgiven AND forgotten.

True, we are creatures of long memory, and forgetting a betrayal is very difficult. But to wield it like a sword of Damocles is only slightly less worse than the infidelity itself. If she wanted to hold it against him forever, she needed to do it as a divorcee.

We seem to be operating off of two very difference sources. I'm actually glad that I hear a lot about the needs a wife has, because it has helped me to become a better husband to my wife. As a man, it's not always apparent to me what my wife needs form me emotionally, so I do have to make an effort to learn and understand. I'm also blessed with a wife who will come out and tell me when I'm not getting it right.

Blessed indeed. Congratulations!

Which, of course, gets back to that which I believe is the single most important element of any relationship:

Communication.

On this point we are in complete agreement.

The problem is that's a line you can't so esaily define. When you say "when he decided to cheat" at what point along the way do you mean?

Seriously? I wouldn't go so far as to hang a man for what goes on in his mind, but if you're going out of your way to meet a woman who isn't your wife, and the conversation isn't exclusively about work, and she's asking pointed questions about how happy you are in your marriage -- what color should the flying mallet be painted so that you'll notice it as it strikes your skull?

Do you mean when he decided to start spending time around his old flame?

That depends on what kind of time (lunch, dinner, midnight snack?) and how the conversations go. Surely even the dumbest person can tell when someone's trying to steer the conversation into sexual matters.

Do you mean when he decided meet up with her that fateful night so they could talk?

Getting warmer.

Do you mean when she kissed him and he didn't immediately put her out of the car?

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

Do you mean when his hormones were fully fired up and he became aroused?

Still time to realize the path you're on. Nobody can claim the label of civilized human being and use the hormone excuse.

Do you mean the moment he undid his pants?

Are you kidding me? If, at this point, you dont' realize that you're about to dick-in-puss with someone other than the woman you married, you are a complete moron.

(Can you tell I've heard this story ad nauseam?)

Yes. I can also tell that if you hear that a lot, your friends have ethical anorexia.

Because I can assure you at no time did Chuck say to himself "I'm gonna cheat on Susan now." I bet everybody posting on this thread knows how it is when your thinking becomes clouded and things that never made sense before suddenly become very logical indeed, only to revert back afterward.

You can assure me of that, can you? 'Cause I don't think you can. I think Chuck might have said that in order to rationalize or salve his conscience and sense of self-recrimination (now THERE's an urge harder to resist than infidelity), but I'd place more money on the wager that there was at least one moment where he told himself that this was going to happen. His conscience was screaming at him, and he chose not to listen. Now, if he was drugged or in some other way incapacitated, you'd have a point.

Perhaps as a teenager, when you're still figuring out how everything works, you can be overcome int he face of all rationality. But if you were adult enough to go through everything involved in a wedding and commit to the level of responsibility involved there, you're adult enough to say "gee, the women trying to fondle my balls through my corduroys is not my wife...golly, maybe I should go."

My point here is that Chuck made a series of bad moves which led to his ultimate fall, but at no time was he deliberately setting out to do what he did, and he ESPECIALLY didn't want to hurt Susan.

I'm sorry, but at some point, he knew what he was doing and knew the consequences. How could he not? So you may be right -- it may not be "malfeasance", but it is at least "neglect", and it is deliberate. How many times did his conscience ask him what he was doing as he drove to the trysting spot? Unless he has absolutely no inner monologue at all, he had twinges and he had to have ignored them as he drove.

That's what I mean when I talk about education. Knowing the problems and warning signs early enough that one can avoid trouble before they get past the point of thinking rationally.

I suppose there's merit to this idea. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around how hard it is to not see that the woman whose tongue is in your mouth is not your wife...and that's...bad.

Now, mind you, I think most of these sources are crap. But that's because I think the entire idea of "men's needs" (as separated from "women's needs") is crap. I think PEOPLE have relationship needs, but which needs a person has isn't determined by their gender any more than it is determined by their shoe size.

Spot on.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I prefer breasts that fit into my hands.
:p

AMEN, BROTHER!!!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23575221/

Apparently, according to Dr. Laura, if a man cheats, it's his wife's fault, at least to some extent.

Never mind that no wife ever holds a gun to her husband's head and orders him to cheat. Never mind how corrupted, vile, and scummy the collective lot of politicians and men are. Nope. We have to keep women down.

No one ever claims that women who supposedly cheat can blame their husbands. It's always the wife's fault.

From what little I have observed of this cheating phenomenon, it appears that by and large it is typically a symptom of an underlying problem in the relationship. I think that this was pretty much Dr. Laura's point. Assuming that a man sleeping with a prostitute is a bad thing, I am not sure that typically such behavior is the result of his wife not being enough to make him happy and that is a problem. She may have made him happy at one point and then he married her but then she started being a bad wife and he decided to go the prostitute route. None of this of course gets to the real issue of Governor Spitzer which is that he was apparently merciless in his administration of justice as a governor and an attorney general and a holier than thou type and yet here he was violating the law. When you are despised by Ken Langone you are probably a real dirt bag because I trust KL's judgment.

Bunk. Those are merely stereotypes, and you're believing them. How about some real needs? Eh? Can't find them I bet.
That's my point, darling.

Do you actually think that the mainstream sources which talk about "women's needs" are any less sexist? Do you actually think that when Cosmo has an article on a "woman's needs" in a relationship, that these are REAL needs possessed by all women?

Take it from a real live female human being: THEY ARE NOT.

That's my entire freaking point.

"Men's needs" get every bit as much attention as "women's needs," if not more so...but THE ENTIRE CONCEPT of "men's needs" and "women's needs" IS PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP.

The entire system of separating male needs from female needs is at the core of the freaking problem. It's a lazy, flawed short-cut for idiots who can't wrap their heads around the idea of talking to their own partner.

Your partner is not a videogame. You do not enter in the special Male Needs cheat code and unlock Eternal Bliss Mode. There is not some universal emotional kill-switch built in to every Female Human model.

You will actually have to get to know your partner, instead of expecting that their maleness or femaleness is all the information required to identify their needs, wants, and motives.

But they WERE engaged.

Unless you're suggesting that cheating on a fiancee' is okay.If it's an arranged marriage that you oppose, I don't consider it cheating. They didn't just become engaged, they were engaged. By others.

That isn't what I said. You are also very young. Come back when you are 40 and let's see how a 20 year old flirting with you feels to your ego. ;)
Being flirted with by an attractive person tends to boost one's ego, no matter what age or gender one is. So? Enjoying attention from a hottie does not mean you want to cheat on your partner.

Ha. I love that three separate guys immediately had to note their need for big-boobed teenagers. :p
I'm not partial to big boobs, but you could sign me up for a couple of moderately-boobed teenagers.

Being flirted with by an attractive person tends to boost one's ego, no matter what age or gender one is. So? Enjoying attention from a hottie does not mean you want to cheat on your partner.

Well stated as usual Bottle...
I'm not forty yet (don't have that far to go though) but I enjoy it when I receive attention from a 'young hottie'

Well stated as usual Bottle...
I'm not forty yet (don't have that far to go though) but I enjoy it when I receive attention from a 'young hottie'...until you find out she's married and has a one year old kid... =/

Stupid woman, saying socially unacceptable things.

So far, no problem.


Wrong. Flat out wrong.

I am not in any way guilty if my partner chooses to cheat on me. He is responsible for his own behavior. If his expectations and needs are not being met, there are plenty of non-asshole ways to deal with that. Including ending the relationship. Cheating is an asshole move. If he chooses to be an asshole, the fault is 100% his.


And cheating on them is still assholish, no matter how wrong they may be.


"Men" are not ignored at home, any more than "women" are ignored at home. Some PEOPLE are ignored at home, and some of those people are male while others are female. Many people of both genders are not ignored at home.


Oh look, another woman who has a history of affairs with married men is eager to tell us all how cheating is really the fault of the woman who WASN'T cheating. Surprise surprise.


Bullshit. You, apparently, seek out insecure, self-involved jackasses who can't talk to the women they married. Having decided to have relationships with cheaters, you proceed to believe the cheaters when they tell you that their wives are bitches. When the man who is cheating on his wife with you tells you all about how she is insensitive and self-absorbed, you actually buy it, and convince yourself that YOU are much better than those frigid old nags.

I'm sure you also believe the cheaters when they tell you that you are special, and they can open up to you in ways they couldn't open up to anybody else before.


No, she's asking him to either do his chores and pull his weight, or leave. If he finds that her standards are unreasonable to him, then he should leave.


I don't know if you really should be proud of the fact that you attract men who like to cheat.


Translation: stop asking your man to do things, because if you have standards he'll leave you for a woman who doesn't have standards.


Funny, that's the OPPOSITE of what all the diamond commercials and TV specials tell me. See, it's really us tender emotional women who constantly need to be given flowers and jewels so that we know we're oh-so-special. And we're the ones who need pink and red crap thrown at us every February 14th, because we're tender and cuddly like that.

I guess you pick your sexist bullshit based on what you're trying to justify, hmm?


I'd just like to point this out for all the people claiming that "men's needs" in a relationship are always neglected.

I guess they're always neglected except for "all those articles about keeping the excitement in a marriage," which are always "for the woman to learn how to keep it exciting for the man."


You've yet to present a single special "male" need. All you've done is share the fact that you, personally, tend to seek out relationships with insecure men who like to cheat on their wives.


Again I'd like to point this out for the people claiming that men's needs are never given attention. Here we have somebody who isn't Bottle reminding us that these notions have been around "for generations" are "are hardly a new or original concept."

Which is precisely what I've been saying all along. This bunk isn't new bunk. It's very, very old bunk.


Sure. And assuming that your partner's needs are determined by his maleness is, frankly, the kind of thinking that will lead you to have lots of failed relationships with men who cheat.


Meh. I'd appreciate if people would knock it off with the constant unsupported sexist BS. We can't always get what we want.

You know you are simply one really angry person I think.

FYI, I did laugh at your presumption that only insecure men cheat. Tells me all I need to know about how little you understand this entire issue.

Also, no where in there did I ever excuse the cheater.

...until you find out she's married and has a one year old kid... =/

That wouldn't bother me, I'm happily married so it would have no effect on me enjoying the attention and conversation. I'm not looking for a replacement for my wife.
Also, when I met my wife she had a two year old who I have since raised as my own.

Well stated as usual Bottle...
I'm not forty yet (don't have that far to go though) but I enjoy it when I receive attention from a 'young hottie'
Hell, I'm not even in my 30s yet, and I enjoy being flirted with by hot 20 year olds. In fact, I think I tend to enjoy such attention even more than my (male) partner does. Probably because he's more physically attractive than I am, so he's more used to getting flirted with and it's not as much of a surprise to him.

Yet the fact that I enjoy this attention does not remotely mean that I want to cheat on my partner. Nor am I worried that he'd leave me for some "young hottie" just because he's flattered when one flirts with him.

Amarillic, even?

Now? Possibly verdant.

That wouldn't bother me, I'm happily married so it would have no effect on me enjoying the attention and conversation. I'm not looking for a replacement for my wife.
Also, when I met my wife she had a two year old who I have since raised as my own.
Well, yeah. I was single at the time, and she apparently wasn't, so I let it be.

Hell, I'm not even in my 30s yet, and I enjoy being flirted with by hot 20 year olds. In fact, I think I tend to enjoy such attention even more than my (male) partner does. Probably because he's more physically attractive than I am, so he's more used to getting flirted with and it's not as much of a surprise to him.

Yet the fact that I enjoy this attention does not remotely mean that I want to cheat on my partner. Nor am I worried that he'd leave me for some "young hottie" just because he's flattered when one flirts with him.

That's the part that some people don't seem to be able to comprehend.

You know you are simply one really angry person I think.

You think wrong. Again. :D


FYI, I did laugh at your presumption that only insecure men cheat. Tells me all I need to know about how little you understand this entire issue.
Hey, I'll freely admit I have less...experience...with cheating men than you do. I simply don't think that puts me at a disadvantage. ;)

Well, yeah. I was single at the time, and she apparently wasn't, so I let it be.

Meh, my wife was married to someone else (she was legally separated) at the time that we met, it didn't bother me...

Meh, my wife was married to someone else (she was legally separated) at the time that we met, it didn't bother me...That's something different, or at least it is here. Unless there's some spousal abuse or similar going on, you need to wait a year before a marriage can be legally dissolved over here.

However this was not the case in my situation. Husband still lived at home, though she said she was thinking about a divorce. Of course, Ilie telling everyone that she was hoping I was getting laid during the night I spent with the girl in question did not help =P

That's the part that some people don't seem to be able to comprehend.
It's just projection. It's like how people who lie all the time frequently suspect others of being liars. People who like to cheat will tend to assume that everybody else shares their personal flaw.

You know you are simply one really angry person I think.

Nothing personal, PQ, but you are saying some rather absurd things. Men have "special needs" because they have a more prominent erotic organ than women do? That is thinking that has gone out-the-window with racism. Do people with brown hair have "special needs" too?

Nothing personal, PQ, but you are saying some rather absurd things. Men have "special needs" because they have a more prominent erotic organ then women do? That is thinking that has gone out-the-window with racism. Do people with brown hair have "special needs" too?
And what about gay men and gay women? Or transmen and transwomen?

What about bisexuals?!

Hey, I'll freely admit I have less...experience...with cheating men than you do. I simply don't think that puts me at a disadvantage. ;)

There, there. If it will help, Bottle, I want you to know that if I was in a relationship and I was going to cheat, you would be the first person I would go to. :D

There, there. If it will help, Bottle, I want you to know that if I was in a relationship and I was going to cheat, you would be the first person I would go to. :D
Heh. *ass pinch*

The thing is, I've had the opportunity to be the "other woman" several times. But...why would I want to be with the kind of guy who cheats? If he'll cheat with me, he'll cheat on me. I can do better.