# Dr. Laura sez Men cheating is all Women's fault



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2008)

This absolutely misplaced, judgemental, from-the-crotch-of-her-three-day-old-panties opinion from this crone the likes of Judge Judy just makes me want to vomit.



> VIEIRA: Are you saying women should feel guilty, like they somehow drove the man to cheat?
> 
> 
> SCHLESSINGER: You know what, the cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged, and to feed himself where he's starving. But, yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.



Story with video from the Huffington Post
Link to convo on wowowow.com

Sexual health in a relationship requires many facets of cooperation, but to publicly make this statement and the other statements made in the video are truly enough to enrage.  I'm embarrassed to be in the same gender class as the two women being interviewed by Vieira.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 13, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> This absolutely misplaced, judgemental, from-the-crotch-of-her-three-day-old-panties opinion from this crone the likes of Judge Judy just makes me want to vomit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

So, as my ex- cheated on me it was my fault. Logic works both ways right? 

It has nothing to do with making a choice or honoring one's life mate?

It is all about making the fault someone else's. 

Responibility for a person's actions are their own. 

Now, if the arguement had been, she had abused him verbally and emotionally and even physically then one could state that she may have driven him away from her. The same is true in reverse.


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 13, 2008)

Even I... a guy... find this to be absolutely crazy.  Sure, many women mis-treat, neglect their men.  Been there, done that.  However, cheating or not cheating was a moral decision that I and I alone could make.  While being "neglected" may start a man looking it can never be blamed for him making that last step.  It's his honor to lose, not hers to take.

You're dead on, She-she, that the intimate part of a relationship is multi-faceted.  I have found it, quite often, a good barometer of the relationship as a whole.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 13, 2008)

Well, Dr. Laura did say later on in that show that even if a woman tried all she could, the guy could still be the jerk and she would not necessarily be the one at fault.  I bolded the part below:



> *Schlessinger said later in the show that there are some instances in which it doesn&#8217;t matter what the wife does. **&#8220;If he&#8217;s sociopathic or narcissistic, all bets are off,&#8221; she said. &#8220;The woman can be the best person in the world, and he&#8217;s going to be a jerk.&#8221;* But most men aren&#8217;t like that, she said, adding, &#8220;The average husband longs for one thing, and that&#8217;s to be special to his woman.&#8221;
> 
> Kotb asked her if she would stand by her husband as Silda Spitzer and Matos did by theirs in a similar situation.
> &#8220;If I had been a truly loving, caretaking, supportive wife, and my husband did such an egregious thing, his butt would be standing there by itself,&#8221; Schlessinger replied.



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

I would like to remind Dr. Laura, that women also want to be considered special by their men.  If men stray, this is not a way of telling their wives that they're special.  The decision to stray is his, and his alone, to make.

Ceicei


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2008)

If this was a case of the wife "freezing out" [so to speak] a nice guy or there was some evidence that the guy was made to look elsewhere for affection/sexual gratification because of some alienation of affection, then PERHAPS there would be some basis for discussion on this topic. But as there is no evidence that this was the case here, I cant understand why Dr. Laura is bringing it up.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 13, 2008)

Well I have to say being a guy I have to dis agree if I cheated, I need to stand up and take blame for my own action, not turn on to somone else. Geez some people.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2008)

Well to be totally honest, if I was stuck in a sexless marriage with a wife who made me feel worthless and there was little hope of things changing but wanted to keep up a stable home for the kids, I cant say I wouldnt "look elsewhere". Would starting a real relationship with another woman and all the emotional baggage that brings with it be better than just paying cash for satisfaction?

Not really saying I would, but I can sort of see her point in a vauge way.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2008)

The most egregious act this woman purports on her listeners and even those of us who got over listening to her when we all found out she was dishing out therapy when she didn't even have a therapy license ...

(inhales loud, long and deep then says really fast)

:cuss:... is that she goes about her career dropping the names of Rabbis, Doctors, Therapists and has essentially given herself the job of Morality Expert Extraordinaire, asking everyone who calls her or even glances in her general direction (you know - anywhere near the North American continent) what their moral dilemma is as though the morality issue is the panacea to ALL answers confounding the poor, uneducated, unenlightened minds of America At Large and thank goodness she's there to put the moral spin on things because when someone is in a moral dilemma and they have clearly defined their moral boundaries and honed their moral compass all answers should be fairly simple if one would just pay homage to their import and isn't that what therapy should really all be about - that guilt-ridden, angst-sodden dogmatic drudgery that everyone adjusts their sexuality, material desire, nutritional appetite, vocational goals and achievements to so to create peace and harmony in one heart and, thus, all hearts and minds so that we're not all a bunch of whiny, weak, amoral infants?????

(inhales long, loud and deep again, panting for breath)

Excuse me ... I haven't GOTTEN LAID in a while.  Perhaps I should send my HUSBAND to DR LAURA!!!!  (just kidding, folks)

Actually I think I need to pull out my copies of the Bible KJV and the Q'uran ... I must have missed a commandment somewhere ....


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2008)

God's statement to Adam was that he must love his wife as he loves himself.

So there.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 13, 2008)

Dr. Lauras point is that if you are half assed about your responsibilities in a relationship you can expect half assed results... either way.
sean


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Well to be totally honest, if I was stuck in a sexless marriage with a wife who made me feel worthless and there was little hope of things changing but wanted to keep up a stable home for the kids, I cant say I wouldnt "look elsewhere". Would starting a real relationship with another woman and all the emotional baggage that brings with it be better than just paying cash for satisfaction?
> 
> Not really saying I would, but I can sort of see her point in a vauge way.


 

Take out the "IF" and the "kids" and that was me. I still did not look elsewhere. I tried to work with her and her depression. I tried to work with her and her spending issues. I tried to work with her and her other issues. 

I even asked is she wanted to see a counsiler on together or own her own. Her reply was that is was all me and that I could see a counsiler if I wanted to, but she was not.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 13, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> The most egregious act this woman purports on her listeners and even those of us who got over listening to her when we all found out she was dishing out therapy when she didn't even have a therapy license ...
> 
> (inhales loud, long and deep then says really fast)
> 
> ...


 
AMEN!


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2008)

Well, having kids changes a lot of things. In your situation I would have just dumped her. But I do respect your willingness to work things out.

My wife and I have had our ups and downs as all have. But fortunately nothing this bad has ever happened. IMO one of the fundamental problems in the "battle of the sexes" is that guys seem to need (at least I do) sex to feel connected/affectionate to the girl. While girls need to feel connected/affectionate to want to have sex. If things are going well, things go well. The longer the "dry spell" gets the more agitated each side gets with the other.

Is that what happened here? Who knows, but I dont think so. I think Spitzer was used to doing what ever he wanted and buying whatever he wanted and wasnt all to concerned with what others think or feel. His whole drivers licences for illegals fiasco just illustrated that. At one point I think he outright said "I dont care what the people think."


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Take out the "IF" and the "kids" and that was me. I still did not look elsewhere. I tried to work with her and her depression. I tried to work with her and her spending issues. I tried to work with her and her other issues.
> 
> I even asked is she wanted to see a counsiler on together or own her own. Her reply was that is was all me and that I could see a counsiler if I wanted to, but she was not.


artyon:

Gawd, I think even the Good :barf: Doctor Laura could agree to this: when you are committed to another person and have SWORN YOURSELF to this person, it is incumbent upon you to go through burning hellfire with them to get past the illness, past the depression to the core of the matter - even if that core is that you no longer belong together.



			
				Archangel M said:
			
		

> Well to be totally honest, if I was stuck in a sexless marriage with a wife who made me feel worthless and there was little hope of things changing but wanted to keep up a stable home for the kids, I cant say I wouldnt "look elsewhere". Would starting a real relationship with another woman and all the emotional baggage that brings with it be better than just paying cash for satisfaction?
> 
> Not really saying I would, but I can sort of see her point in a vauge way.



One person's sexual disinterest or neglectful behavior is not the indication that one must go fornicating elsewhere.

Do I understand sex drive? Heh. Heh heh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ask my husband ... when we wakes up ... from his vitamin E insufficiency coma.

But for a "Moral Expert" to say a woman is at fault for "discarding a perfectly good man" is SO WRONG it's not even laughable.  First of all - who said he was good? Who the hell said he was "Perfectly Good?" And ah ... what about that thar "moral compass" on HIS account there, Laura?  What morals did he pull up from his boots when we sought out a hooker instead of ... well, calling HER?


----------



## Carol (Mar 13, 2008)

Meh.  She slept with a program director and posed nekkid for him to get her first radio gig.   

As far as I'm concerned, she's just finding new ways of prostituting herself.


----------



## tellner (Mar 13, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> This absolutely misplaced, judgemental, from-the-crotch-of-her-three-day-old-panties opinion from this crone the likes of Judge Judy just makes me want to vomit.



And this surprises you?

"Doctor" Laura has made her entire career out of beating up on women, telling them that everything about them is bad and that whatever happens is their fault because they're women. She's got the classic virgin/whore thing going, a streak of smug self-righteousness a mile wide and a personal life which makes you wince to read about.

She doesn't like women plain and simple.

Her fans call her up to be berated, belittled and beaten up. 

So *of course* cheating happens because the woman is bad or because she isn't younger, blonder, nicer and with bigger boobs. Most of all it happens because they won't shut up and be little Stepford Total Women.

When Susan Faludi talks about the backlash she's got that pious old fraud in her sights.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 13, 2008)

*1) The average husband longs for one thing, and that&#8217;s to be special to his woman.


2) Women also want to be considered special by their men.*

I think this belongs up there with "To thine own self be true" and other core statements regarding the human condition.

Speaking generally, rather than joining in with the discussion of the particular woman whose the main ... erm ... thrust ... of the thread, there are problems where sex drives are not matched closely enough.  This can be wherever one of the partners in a relationship, regardless of gender, has physical desires either greater or less than their significant other.

The moral high ground is a nice place to stand but I'm not to sure that everyone can fit up there.  Relationships, regardless of the otherwise fine character of the people involved, sometimes cannot withstand the stresses brought on by sexual imbalance.  We have to beware of judging harshly those who have been in situations we have not.

To use a real world example, a while ago, I was in a 'relationship' (and I use the term loosely) with an absolutely beautiful (Sophia Loren look-alike) girl.  I was more than ten years her senior but at first that didn't seem to matter much ... until it turned out that she was a bona fide nymphomaniac and I was her 'first'.  

I know that at this moment every man here is going "And ... ?!"  but it was a genuinely serious problem.  The imbalance in 'drive' is what broke us up because, once she started, she was incapable of remaining faithful.  The sex drive is a massively powerful one and, almost, cannot be denied.  So I do not, nowadays, hold her in disdain because she, literaly, could not help herself.  I likewise, having lived through such an episode, am reluctantly to 'judge' anyone's antics when they are people I do not know well.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 13, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> The moral high ground is a nice place to stand but I'm not to sure that everyone can fit up there.


 
Dude I am SO stealing that!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 13, 2008)

> VIEIRA: Are you saying women should feel guilty, like they somehow drove the man to cheat?
> 
> 
> SCHLESSINGER: You know what, the cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged, and to feed himself where he's starving. But, yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.


 
Huh?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 13, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Dude I am SO stealing that!


 
I'm flattered and you're quite welcome - copyright waived .


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 13, 2008)

This topic does not require a lot of dialog.
Before you jump to conclusions listen to what she said, she said in a lot of cases the guy is just a jerk and wants to hoe around, she also said that in some cases when a women loses interest in sex and doesn't want to "mess around" that will cause SOME GUY'S to look for sex somewhere else, she wasn't saying that the guy is right for looking elsewhere she was just stating a fact.
So  don't start hating on Dr. Laura for this. Whoever started this thread get your facts straight before you start to get everybody worked up.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 13, 2008)

One more thing, as i read some of these posts i can see that the people that support deviant life styles is bashing Dr.Laura, and this is a non subject, before you start bashing read or listen to what she said. All this bashing for a non issue is just another bit of proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 13, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> One more thing, as i read some of these posts i can see that the people that support deviant life styles is bashing Dr.Laura, and this is a non subject, before you start bashing read or listen to what she said. All this bashing for a non issue is just another bit of proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.


Any statement, taken out of context, can be misunderstood.  Based on the context given, Dr. Laura is blaming the larger portion of adulterous incidents on women, while the majority of posters here are saying that adultery can be due to the behaviors of either or both members of the partnership; most stated could be the man, could be the woman, could be both.  

I fail to see the support for "deviant lifestyles" in that.  Yes, there were 1 or 2 posts that included male/male and female/female partnerships, but that does not detract from the main thrust of the discussion... nor is it relevant, as in same-sex partnerships, there is not "a" woman - there are either 2 women, or no women.  Therefore "the woman causes adultery" becomes irrelevant.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Well to be totally honest, if I was stuck in a sexless marriage with a wife who made me feel worthless and there was little hope of things changing but wanted to keep up a stable home for the kids, I cant say I wouldnt "look elsewhere". Would starting a real relationship with another woman and all the emotional baggage that brings with it be better than just paying cash for satisfaction?
> 
> Not really saying I would, but I can sort of see her point in a vauge way.




I have been there, I understand, and I agree with her to some extent.  But as Shesula said, it is a complicated situation.   It isn't a simple black and white situation.   Yes, I believe it works both ways, it happens to both genders and I believe it is because something very serious is already broken or missing in the relationship.  

As far as kids are concerned, in the situation described above, at some point you come to a realization that life is too short to be so miserable and it isn't healthy for children to see such a dysfunctional marriage and after a decade of hell, you finally find the strength within yourself to get the hell out before you don't have much life left live.

Sorry, but I somewhat agree with them.  Just as I would agree if the genders were reversed on the interview.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 13, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> One more thing, as i read some of these posts i can see that the people that support deviant life styles is bashing Dr.Laura, and this is a non subject, before you start bashing read or listen to what she said. *All this bashing for a non issue is just another bit of proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.*



How in the hell did you come up with this becoming an issue of liberalism and it being a mental disorder?  If you wish to make your point regarding the *SUBJECT* of this thread, please feel free to do so in a *POLITE and FRIENDLY *manner.  Otherwise, please refrain from derailing a thread and trollng looking to start an arguement.  Thank you.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 13, 2008)

I was forced to read one of Dr. Laura's books for an ethics class that I took once....it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.  I really don't think that I can even stomach clicking on the links....


----------



## elder999 (Mar 13, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> So don't start hating on Dr. Laura for this. Whoever started this thread get your facts straight before you start to get everybody worked up.


 
Ooh, ooh! I got a fact! I got a fact!! I got a fact:

*DR. LAURA IS A GODDAM, GOLD-PLATED, CONSUMMATE, WORLD-CLASS MORON!*

..._and that's a fact!_ :lol:


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 13, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I was forced to read one of Dr. Laura's books for an ethics class that I took once....it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.  I really don't think that I can even stomach clicking on the links....



Oh, Man!  I so feel for you!

These radio personalities -- Dr. Laura and that guy Rush Limbaugh and all of the rest of them -- they are not to be taken seriously, but only for "entertainment".  I personally put NO stock whatsoever in anything they say. 

Hahahaha -- this one is funny!


> has essentially given herself the job of Morality Expert Extraordinaire


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 13, 2008)

"Dr." Laura's views on a myrad range of topics is as accurate and trustworthy as
George W Bush's knowledge of where the WMD are
Dick Cheneys knowledge of firearm safety
Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer's knowledge of marital loyalty.

She is little more than an shallow, angry, hate filled shrew, whose heart is as black as night, whose mind is as open as a sealed box, and whose true value as a human can be measured, but only at the sub-atomic level.

In short, she is nothing more than a git.


Wibble.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2008)

You know, a misogynistic woman is indeed a rare find. A rabid, inane, well-paid one is even rarer.



			
				navyvetcv60 said:
			
		

> This topic does not require a lot of dialog.
> Before you jump to conclusions listen to what she said, she said in a lot of cases the guy is just a jerk and wants to hoe around, she also said that in some cases when a women loses interest in sex and doesn't want to "mess around" that will cause SOME GUY'S to look for sex somewhere else, she wasn't saying that the guy is right for looking elsewhere she was just stating a fact.
> So don't start hating on Dr. Laura for this. Whoever started this thread get your facts straight before you start to get everybody worked up.





			
				navyvetcv60 said:
			
		

> One more thing, as i read some of these posts i can see that the people that support deviant life styles is bashing Dr.Laura, and this is a non subject, before you start bashing read or listen to what she said. All this bashing for a non issue is just another bit of proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.



You clearly don't know how things run here yet nor have a feel for the venue in which you chose to spew your ignorant nonsense.

All one must do is read the quoted text, watch the video of what she said and read her blogs.  

"A mental disorder?" I expected more from a veteran.  I hope you gain a sense of ... well, sense.  And some understanding of the sense of community most people have on MartialTalk.

Good day.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 13, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> These radio personalities -- Dr. Laura and that guy Rush Limbaugh and all of the rest of them -- they are not to be taken seriously, but only for "entertainment".  I personally put NO stock whatsoever in anything they say.



I don't listen to Dr. Laura, but I occasionally will catch Rush. Pretty entertaining, and better than listening to most "News" broadcasts. Do I consider him the gospel truth? or course not. I don't get myself in a tizzy when he says something I find kind of silly. Know why? Because he is a radio personality! He sets no policy, affects my life in no way and has no power over how I live my life or the pleasure I can derive from my life. I feel the same about any celebrity, including Dr. Laura. Some people here should take a dose of the same medicine.

As for the issue of the thread, can men cheating be a woman's fault? Sure it can. It can also be the man's fault. If Dr. Laura debates that, then she is a bit silly. Still, realize she is trying to raise an audience by being silly and controversial, so she is doing that well. Cheating can be cause by many things, and its often hard to find and treat the root causes. Affixing blame is seldom helpful and does not seem to fix anything. Deal with the root, if indeed it is possible to find and deal with. Just pointing fingers won't help, nor will getting excited and further publicizing Dr. Laura.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 13, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> One more thing, as i read some of these posts i can see that the people that support deviant life styles is bashing Dr.Laura, and this is a non subject, before you start bashing read or listen to what she said. All this bashing for a non issue is just another bit of proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.


Hmm So a man screws around on me, and its my fault because i didn't feed his ego enough? Or maybe working and going to school really does have me to tired to have sex tonight so he can go get a free pass to get a hooker? (didnt happen to me just sayin) Or what about the mom who works 2 jobs and is trying to raise a child and her husband is a good for nothing drunk who will screw anything that looks decent after a few rounds, she to blame for not doing her hair just right and telling him how much of a man he is and what a good find he is. 

I can understand why some men would want to cheat but it doesn't give them a RIGHT to cheat. If you are unsatisfied with the sex, quality of life or how she makes you feel, we have ways to handle that file for divorce or break up or seek counseling. Stepping out however is your own choice no one forced you to. Sure its not always black and white but to say that 99% of the time its the womans fault is BS, you might as well send us back to the kitchen and keep us barefoot and knocked up then. Forget higher education and careers or a life outside of the home, lets go back to being baby makers. 
 as for deviant  lifestyles finding a health solid relationship where both people are happy trust each other is deviant? Where both people know and love eachother and they care and support each other. Or maybe where they just see that it is not working out and spare each other the next 10 years of hell and call off the relationship, yup that must be deviant.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 13, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> realize she is trying to raise an audience by being silly and controversial



right


----------



## stone_dragone (Mar 14, 2008)

so long as this conversation doesn't raise her ratings among our numbers...


----------



## Marginal (Mar 14, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Hmm So a man screws around on me, and its my fault because i didn't feed his ego enough? Or maybe working and going to school really does have me to tired to have sex tonight so he can go get a free pass to get a hooker?


Dr. Laura has to justify those nude pics somehow.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 14, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Take out the "IF" and the "kids" and that was me. I still did not look elsewhere. I tried to work with her and her depression. I tried to work with her and her spending issues. I tried to work with her and her other issues.
> 
> I even asked is she wanted to see a counsiler on together or own her own. Her reply was that is was all me and that I could see a counsiler if I wanted to, but she was not.


Hey; that was my marriage.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 14, 2008)

Lisa said:


> How in the hell did you come up with this becoming an issue of liberalism and it being a mental disorder? If you wish to make your point regarding the *SUBJECT* of this thread, please feel free to do so in a *POLITE and FRIENDLY *manner. Otherwise, please refrain from derailing a thread and trollng looking to start an arguement. Thank you.


He does make an interesting point.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 14, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Dr. Laura has to justify those nude pics somehow.


No she isn't. This has absolutly nothing to do with a few poses in her youth. She said it was a mistake. It is her cross to bare (tee hee).
Sean


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

Not to defend "Dr. Laura" but this conversation reminds me of something Mark MacYoung brought up on his page. (www.nononsenseselfdefense.com)

At least, this is what I got out of it.

He was talking about causes and situations leading up to rape. He was basically saying that many rapists got acquitted in the past because they were found to be "lead on." So that now many people refuse to look at teaching women what not to do, because that is like telling them that the rape in "their fault." As a side effect, now many young women feel justified in playing with fire, so to speak, and enjoy being is "fringe" situations that are exciting, but put themselves in a worse situation for being raped.

It's NOT their fault for being raped, that's 1000% squarely on the shoulders of the rapist. But cause isn't the same as blame.

If you go to the General Self Defense section, and defend your "right" to walk down a dark alley at night, people will counsel you not to. If you get robbed, they are the bad guy, but you would be part of the "cause."

So in regards to men cheating, the cheating men are "wrong," but there are many men who want to be faithful, but the desire isn't strong enough to keep them faithful. It's not the wives _fault_ if her husband cheats, nor is she to _blame,_ but she does need to be aware that she could be contributing to the _cause_. Does that make sense?

I'm in the middle of dealing with two different men who have been mentally abused by their wives. In one case she is always telling him (publicly) how stupid he is, and what a failure he is, etc. etc. He's not -- he's a sharp, hard-working guy. He works much harder than she does. She does it for a feeling of power. He's put up with it for 7 years, and is beginning to believe it. Now, he _shouldn't_ cheat on her, but he should get away from her. However, he's stuck in the victim mentality, and is afraid to be by himself now, because he believes the crap she's given him.

Or to flip the situation, a friend of mine got into the same situation as *Sukerkin*. Except he married the girl before her "appetite" got out of control. He does realize that he contributed to the problem (they're divorced now), because he took several jobs that took him away from home for weeks at a time, leaving her alone and bored. He knows that it's not his _fault_, and that she is responsible for what she did, but he still wonders what would have happened if they had been in a different lifestyle.

So, all that said, I guess I'm just wondering if we will ever get to a point where we can, in a public arena, look at what happens to the victims, and how they could have avoided the situation, without actually blaming the victim?


----------



## tellner (Mar 14, 2008)

Back when Marc and I were on better terms we had a hell of an argument about that one. He was always eager to push things until rape was almost reasonable. "Well, whatifshe waits until he's really horny? Whatifshe waits until he's gotten to second base? Whatifshe waits until it's halfway in? Whatifshe waits until he's right on the edge?" I swear, he was like a fifteen year old trying to find out when it was OK to keep going and missed the real point entirely.

Marc knows a lot of things and has many sterling qualities. Women's self defense and rape prevention are not among them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 14, 2008)

That's a thoughtful post, *Thardey* and it's an interesting point of how do you seperate fault and blame out of the mix when examining the contributing factors to an incident.

As you say, the victim in a circumstance can have contributed to the incident occurring, even unknowingly.  For example, drawing on my own life again, the time I had to fight was in part my own 'fault' because I made a bad choice in avoidance tactic and got myself cornered.  I'm not to blame for those chaps trying to rearrange me but I contributed in the sense that I made a poor choice through fear.

For some instances it's more difficult to do this 'autopsy' than others because the pall of Political Correctness casts it's shade over what should be common sense.  

That's particularly true of crimes of sexual violence against women where the drive has been such that some girls, especially the younger ones, abrogate their responsibilities to take reasonable care in how they dress and behave and the places they frequent.  

I don't want to give rise to a storm of naysaying on this angle and I concur that in a perfect world a girl should be able to dress how she likes and go where she likes.  Nor am I saying that a girl asaulted because she dressed provocatively 'deserved' what she got.  I'm simply trying to back up the point that everyone has to acknowledge their input when it comes to parsing out how something happened.

Anyhow, that's sort of OT, altho' we are drifting into a discussion of _how_ and _why_ things can happen rather than responding directly to the OP.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

tellner said:


> Back when Marc and I were on better terms we had a hell of an argument about that one. He was always eager to push things until rape was almost reasonable. "Well, whatifshe waits until he's really horny? Whatifshe waits until he's gotten to second base? Whatifshe waits until it's halfway in? Whatifshe waits until he's right on the edge?" I swear, he was like a fifteen year old trying to find out when it was OK to keep going and missed the real point entirely.
> 
> Marc knows a lot of things and has many sterling qualities. Women's self defense and rape prevention are not among them.


 
Oooh! Ohhh! I call strawman! Who cares about your opinion of Marc? What about the point?

What is there to argue regarding Thardy's post? He does have a point. Somehow pointing out issues that influenced an outcome always seem to be reinterpreted as blame..then condemned...then ignored. Walking down a dark alley, in a crime ridden neighborhood with a rolex on your wrist and a few $100's sticking out of your pocket isnt a great idea. Are you to "blame" when you get attacked? No, but come on...However if a female gets intoxicated and then decides to get in a car with some guy she just met at the bar and go to his place and the worst happens, its un PC to point out how her actions could have contributed to the outcome. 

There is a difference between "blame", meaning your actions caused someone else to behave in a specific manner and "cause" [for lack of a better term] meaning your decisions can have consequences.


----------



## tellner (Mar 14, 2008)

Try again, AM. It's significant background about Marc which bears directly on his suitability as an authority on rape and rape prevention.


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

tellner said:


> Try again, AM. It's significant background about Marc which bears directly on his suitability as an authority on rape and rape prevention.



Not really, I wasn't using him as a source. I was using his point of view as a illustration. My post was my thinking. I'll take responsibility for it.

And AM, I think you were looking for "ad hominem" instead of "straw man." But your point is valid.


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

tellner said:


> Back when Marc and I were on better terms we had a hell of an argument about that one. He was always eager to push things until rape was almost reasonable. "Well, whatifshe waits until he's really horny? Whatifshe waits until he's gotten to second base? Whatifshe waits until it's halfway in? Whatifshe waits until he's right on the edge?" I swear, he was like a fifteen year old trying to find out when it was OK to keep going and missed the real point entirely.
> 
> Marc knows a lot of things and has many sterling qualities. Women's self defense and rape prevention are not among them.



*OT alert!*

That's odd, in reading his stuff on the web now it sounds like he's saying the opposite. "Don't go with the guy into a quiet room!" "Don't wear provocative clothing!" "Don't play the "power" game!"

*OT alert over*


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

thardey said:


> Not really, I wasn't using him as a source. I was using his point of view as a illustration. My post was my thinking. I'll take responsibility for it.
> 
> And AM, I think you were looking for "ad hominem" instead of "straw man." But your point is valid.


 
Yeah..probably. Its one of those "gotcha" terms internet posters use when they cant think of anything else to say.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2008)

I think the general idea is that a person can set themselves up to be a victim, in any sort of crime.  There are certain things that a person could do, that would greatly increase the chances of them getting mugged, or their house broken into, or being physically assaulted, or any other number of things.

Most people would agree to that, and very often when they do become a victim it is hard to feel sorry for them.  You own a jewelry store, but didn't bother with security cameras, alarms, or anything?  Just a window and a door with a lock?  Including a back door into a empty alley?  

You might not be at fault, but you where setting yourself up to get robbed based on your actions.  The guy that robbed you is the criminal, and he is to blame, but some basic precautions might have helped.

But when it comes to anything sex related, be it rape of adultry, that's a door not many people want to open.  The person committing the act is the one to blame, but in both cases there are things you can do to make it a little easier, or a little harder for them to do so.

If I run a store, and leave all the cash in a open box on the counter, then head out back for a smoke with no one watching the counter, and come back to find my cash missing, who'd fault is it?  Someone else is the criminal, but I presented the oppurtunity.

Now in a relationship and  looking at cheating, it's a little different then leaving a cash box unattended.  But, I bet if you really sat down and thought about it, you could come up with a plan that would "open the door" for your partner to cheat on you.  It's wrong for them to do it, and they are guilty, but I bet with the right circumstances a lot of people would be tempted to cheat, just like a lot of people would be tempted to stick there hand in that unwatched cash box.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah..probably. Its one of those "gotcha" terms internet posters use when they cant think of anything else to say.



Both are logical fallacies, not just internet buzz words, those terms predate the internet by a long time 

Straw man - Reframe someones argument in such a way that it is easy to knock down, knock down this weaker argument and claim victory.  (ex. Evolution is completely Random -> Completely Random occurences leading to intellegent life is near impossible -> Evolution is false)

Ad Hominem - Ignore the argument, and attack the source of the argument on unrelated issues.  (ex. Al Gore claims global warming is true -> Al Gore is a idiot -> Global Warming is false)


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

Exactly..well put.


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I think the general idea is that a person can set themselves up to be a victim, in any sort of crime.  There are certain things that a person could do, that would greatly increase the chances of them getting mugged, or their house broken into, or being physically assaulted, or any other number of things. . . .
> 
> [snipped]
> 
> Now in a relationship and  looking at cheating, it's a little different then leaving a cash box unattended.  But, I bet if you really sat down and thought about it, you could come up with a plan that would "open the door" for your partner to cheat on you.  It's wrong for them to do it, and they are guilty, but I bet with the right circumstances a lot of people would be tempted to cheat, just like a lot of people would be tempted to stick there hand in that unwatched cash box.



Very well put.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Both are logical fallacies, not just internet buzz words, those terms predate the internet by a long time
> 
> Straw man - Reframe someones argument in such a way that it is easy to knock down, knock down this weaker argument and claim victory. (ex. Evolution is completely Random -> Completely Random occurences leading to intellegent life is near impossible -> Evolution is false)
> 
> Ad Hominem - Ignore the argument, and attack the source of the argument on unrelated issues. (ex. Al Gore claims global warming is true -> Al Gore is a idiot -> Global Warming is false)


 
Yeah..I get it. It just seems like more people on the internet just like to toss the terms up like they are debate winners instead of just continuing with their point. Hardly ever hear the term in a face to face argument.

AH HA! "Ad Hominem on you!!" [run around my laptop with my fist held up].


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah..I get it. It just seems like more people on the internet just like to toss the terms up like they are debate winners instead of just continuing with their point. Hardly ever hear the term in a face to face argument.
> 
> AH HA! "Ad Hominem on you!!" [run around my laptop with my fist held up].



Yeah, they *kind of* work on the internet, because you can assume that people have access to online dictionaries. Face to face, you usually have to spell it out s*l*o*w*l*y.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Oooh! Ohhh! I call strawman! Who cares about your opinion of Marc? What about the point?
> 
> What is there to argue regarding Thardy's post? He does have a point. Somehow pointing out issues that influenced an outcome always seem to be reinterpreted as blame..then condemned...then ignored. Walking down a dark alley, in a crime ridden neighborhood with a rolex on your wrist and a few $100's sticking out of your pocket isnt a great idea. Are you to "blame" when you get attacked? No, but come on...However if a female gets intoxicated and then decides to get in a car with some guy she just met at the bar and go to his place and the worst happens, its un PC to point out how her actions could have contributed to the outcome.
> 
> There is a difference between "blame", meaning your actions caused someone else to behave in a specific manner and "cause" [for lack of a better term] meaning your decisions can have consequences.


A women in my kenpo class informed me that most women who get raped were sporting pigtails or pony tails and that rapist actualy target these women specificly. Its obvious that establishing physical control would be easier with handles. I joked that they were all just lazy rapists, but in reality rape is a crime of opportunity. Even the news pointing out that there are a number of rapes occuring in a certain part of town will cause more rapes in that part of town. I think there is a doctor Laura thread going on right now that could fit this topic... 
Sean


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

Absolutely. Nobody here is trying to assign "blame" on anybody. Some crimes are simply crimes of opportunity. But many (and I dare say most) crimes have some element of "bad karma" associated with them. Things like walking around in the wrong place at the wrong time, partaking of mind altering substances, hanging with less than reputable people and plain old going through life with the antenna down. People need to smarten up. Thats all were sayin.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Absolutely. Nobody here is trying to assign "blame" on anybody. Some crimes are simply crimes of opportunity. But many (and I dare say most) crimes have some element of "bad karma" associated with them. Things like walking around in the wrong polace at the wrong time, partaking of mind altering substances, hanging with less than reputable people and plain old going through life with the antenna down. People need to smarten up. Thats all were sayin.


Um actually ... again ... if you *read what she said* she said, "I blame women..."

Now - I'm of the opinion that all things nasty that people don't understand come from an unfulfilled need.  Robbery, for instance - need for money (food, clothes, drugs, a sense of power, to feel like you belong).  Rape - need for control, need for power-over, need for sexual arousal, need to anesthetize emotional and/or psychological pain ... etcetera.

My problem with this is that the finger is pointing in the wrong direction. 

Sorry - if a person is pointing at a partner's lack of sexual tact, manners or talent, interest, time investment, desire, whatever as the reason and/or justification for infidelity in a marriage ... that's just not enough.

Look - prepare yourselves, folks.  You must be emotionally mature enough and responsible enough to know how the sex dynamic works in relationships and follow through.  Anything less is lacking in integrity which you owe yourself and your partner.

Regardless of your gender, when your spouse asks you about something in your sex life, you OWE it to your spouse/partner to be honest or at least work at getting to truth (if it must be done slowly and in a gentle way, fine).  It takes two to tango and two to botch it up.  If one of you is having problems and the other one is without fulfillment, it is up to each of you individually and together as a union to work it out, wait it out, talk it out, whatever.  THIS is the sanctity of marriage.

If you want out, earn your way out. If you just can't cope with the lack of sex any longer, then you leave, you don't cheat. That's the coward's way.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 14, 2008)

Yup.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 14, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Look - prepare yourselves, folks.  You must be emotionally mature enough and responsible enough to know how the sex dynamic works in relationships and follow through.  Anything less is lacking in integrity which you owe yourself and your partner.
> 
> Regardless of your gender, when your spouse asks you about something in your sex life, you OWE it to your spouse/partner to be honest or at least work at getting to truth (if it must be done slowly and in a gentle way, fine).  It takes two to tango and two to botch it up.  If one of you is having problems and the other one is without fulfillment, it is up to each of you individually and together as a union to work it out, wait it out, talk it out, whatever.  THIS is the sanctity of marriage.
> 
> If you want out, earn your way out. If you just can't cope with the lack of sex any longer, then you leave, you don't cheat. That's the coward's way.



Not only that - but you must be mature enough to _tell_ your partner when something is lacking.  Too many people are too embarrassed to discuss sex, and even when asked directly by a partner, will claim that there are no problems, even when there are.  Communication is a key tenet to a positive relationship - no matter what type - and without communication problems will occur, and fester, and lead to bigger problems.


----------



## thardey (Mar 14, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Um actually ... again ... if you *read what she said* she said, "I blame women..."
> 
> Now - I'm of the opinion that all things nasty that people don't understand come from an unfulfilled need.  Robbery, for instance - need for money (food, clothes, drugs, a sense of power, to feel like you belong).  Rape - need for control, need for power-over, need for sexual arousal, need to anesthetize emotional and/or psychological pain ... etcetera.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. There's _no_ justification for infidelity. I was actually trying to make the point that it's ridiculous that "Dr Laura" can't talk about "unfulfilled needs" without making the victims the culprits. She had to blame them.

Why do we have to assign "blame" to everybody involved? Why can't we talk about wisdom without adding judgment? Why are women either completely helpless, or completely responsible? Can't we talk about what women _can_ do to prevent cheating without condemning the women who _didn't_ do it? And why does the idea that _some women_ may have given their husbands opportunity to cheat automatically mean that _no men_ are responsible?

That's insulting to both men and women! That's saying that women hold sole responsibility (and therefore, blame) for the health of the marriage, and men have no self-control whatsoever!

But in this society of hyper-insecurity, you can't just say "what could have been done to prevent this" without somebody else using it as a springboard for rating, popularity, or as a platform for their own agenda!

Rape, robbery, school shootings, infidelity, cheating, traffic accidents, whatever! It's all fair game when it comes to playing the "blame game" and absolving others of all responsibility. Victims get further traumatized, nobody actually learns how to prevent victimization, guilty actions are justified (which is especially horrific considering the nature of most sexual crimes already establish the feelings of guilt in the victim), and barracuda-like newscasters, politicians, and lobbyists use these people like pawns to raise their own popularity.

:tantrum:
*rant over*


----------



## Carol (Mar 14, 2008)

thardey said:


> Why do we have to assign "blame" to everybody involved?



Because Dr. Laura thrives (and profits handsomely) by berating people whose lives are a mess.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 14, 2008)

All I can say is "top quality rant", *Thardey*.  I can seldom be that eloquent when my Emotion Engine is engaged :tup:.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 14, 2008)

thardey said:


> Absolutely. There's _no_ justification for infidelity. I was actually trying to make the point that it's ridiculous that "Dr Laura" can't talk about "unfulfilled needs" without making the victims the culprits. She had to blame them.
> 
> Why do we have to assign "blame" to everybody involved? Why can't we talk about wisdom without adding judgment? Why are women either completely helpless, or completely responsible? Can't we talk about what women _can_ do to prevent cheating without condemning the women who _didn't_ do it? And why does the idea that _some women_ may have given their husbands opportunity to cheat automatically mean that _no men_ are responsible?
> 
> ...


 
My opinion as well. 

Just better put.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

It seems to me that there are actually two issues here.

The first is compatibility, or the lack thereof.  And yes, the woman can absolutely contribute to that.  Either partner, really.

The second is fidelity, or what steps the frustrated party takes when the couple is no longer compatible.  The responsibility for this, I believe, rests on the person who takes unilateral action to alleviate his/her frustrations, whether the action is to cheat or file for divorce.

So while I would agree that the woman _can_ be to blame for the cause - the incombatibility - it does not follow that she is to blame for the effect - the infidelity.  That was the decision of the man.

I see where Schlessinger was trying to go with this, but I think she lumped this all into one big category and got it wrong.  The fact that she had to make exceptions to her sweeping statement later should have been the hint that she needs to spend more time refining her theory.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> It seems to me that there are actually two issues here.
> 
> The first is compatibility, or the lack thereof.  And yes, the woman can absolutely contribute to that.  Either partner, really.
> 
> ...


But ... again ... and I've been on both sides of this ... is *incompatibility* the fault of one person? And who's really? The one who wants it less? Or the one who wants it more? And does it depend on the reasonability of frequency and how it compares to socially acceptable sexual "guidelines?"

Sexuality and intimacy between couples is an entity unto itself. What one couple defines as a great sex life would bore another couple to tears.

What if the governor's wife wants it eight times a week and would get freaky with him in the limo, a theater, restraunt and men's room?  Is that enough?  What if he needs to be hurt for sexual arousal? What if he needs to be told he's the most powerful man in the world and women are ball-busters who only feed on the efforts of man?  Is it her fault because she's not willing to give him "the affection and attention he needs?"

Sexual incompatibility is not necessarily the fault of one person or another, it's an indication of two people who cannot agree on how to come together - pun intended.

It takes two to tango, two to screw it up.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> But ... again ... and I've been on both sides of this ... is *incompatibility* the fault of one person? And who's really? The one who wants it less? Or the one who wants it more? And does it depend on the reasonability of frequency and how it compares to socially acceptable sexual "guidelines?"


 
Depends on the situation, and it certainly doesn't depend on "socially acceptable guidelines".  It depends on whether both partners are satisfied with what they have.  Compatibility means mutual satisfaction.  A fetishist, for example, is not going to be compatible with somebody who is revolted by his/her particular fetish.  So he/she would seek out someone with similar tastes.  But people change.  Say two years down the road one of them decides that they're no longer interested in something that was integral to their sex life.  The other partner's options are:  1)  find a compromise, if any;  2)  accept a less- or non-satisfying sex life;  3) divorce and find someone more compatible; or 4) cheat.



shesulsa said:


> What if the governor's wife wants it eight times a week and would get freaky with him in the limo, a theater, restraunt and men's room? Is that enough? What if he needs to be hurt for sexual arousal? What if he needs to be told he's the most powerful man in the world and women are ball-busters who only feed on the efforts of man? Is it her fault because she's not willing to give him "the affection and attention he needs?"



If these were things that they agreed upon as part of the relationship, then yes.  If these were things she was willing to do but decided later for whatever reason that she couldn't continue, well, I suppose that's her perogative but it still generates incompatibility.  And if the situation was reversed - if there were things that he was willing to do that he later backed off on, the incompatibility was generated by him.  I'm uncomfortable with using the term "fault" because it implies judgement and I recognize that people do change, but it doesn't change the reality that based on one's decisions the couple is no longer compatible.



shesulsa said:


> Sexual incompatibility is not necessarily the fault of one person or another, it's an indication of two people who cannot agree on how to come together - pun intended.
> 
> It takes two to tango, two to screw it up.


 
I disagree - it takes two to tango, but it only takes one to screw it up.  Just like it takes two people to keep the peace, but only one to start a fight.  But you're right - it's not _necessarily_ the fault of one person or another.  Could be one, the other, or both.  Again, it depends on the situation.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 15, 2008)

It goes to show that it is easier to maintain a stable life if you are not coupled with another person.  That makes things very difficult.  It is the harder way to live.  It may have many advantages to being single, but surely those "good things" come at a price -- it takes effort to make sure that the two people stay in agreement!


----------



## little_miss_fracus (Mar 15, 2008)

Gee this is an awful lot of talk about a woman whose husband cheated on her with a whore.  He did cheat on her with a whore, right?  And some doctor says its the wife's fault?

I know i'm a kid and have a lot to learn but this seems to be pretty darn clear to me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2008)

With no disrespect intended, *Fracus*, wait a while.  Life only seems simple when you're young.  Compexity is directly proportional to duration .


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> I know i'm a kid and have a lot to learn *therefore* this seems to be pretty darn clear to me.


 
Fixed that for you.


----------



## little_miss_fracus (Mar 15, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Fixed that for you.


Uh ... okay.  So ... there are some folks here who type very correct English and some who spell well and know their grammar well but type the way they talk.

Are you guys expecting me to type like an English major all the time?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2008)

I can't answer of Cory but I think he was making the same point as myself, just with a little more brevity.  

He's still online so why not ask him? It's part of what the PM system can be used for after all - I've often used it to chat about something that came up in a thread but wasn't directly pertinent to it.


----------



## tellner (Mar 15, 2008)

As the late RAH said, one of the signs of being a grownup is being an adult about your adultery.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 15, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> Uh ... okay. So ... there are some folks here who type very correct English and some who spell well and know their grammar well but type the way they talk.
> 
> Are you guys expecting me to type like an English major all the time?


 
Sukerkin is correct.  I wasn't correct your grammar, simply pointing out that life is a bit more complicated than it may first appear.  It's okay, we've all been there.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 15, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> Gee this is an awful lot of talk about a woman whose husband cheated on her with a whore.  He did cheat on her with a whore, right?  And some doctor says its the wife's fault?
> 
> I know i'm a kid and have a lot to learn but this seems to be pretty darn clear to me.



Hahaha!  No, you have more sense than this radio personality!  That's right!  Ha!  You just make sure that you get that forward roll down!

As far as this "cheating" business, that is a chance that everyone takes if they choose to get married, it is not an easy thing to do, to maintain a commitment like that!  I cannot speak with personal experience, but have had many friends whose marriage has run afoul!


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> Gee this is an awful lot of talk about a woman whose husband cheated on her with a whore.  He did cheat on her with a whore, right?  And some doctor says its the wife's fault?
> 
> I know i'm a kid and have a lot to learn but this seems to be pretty darn clear to me.



artyon:
You're a pretty smart kid, that's why it's so clear.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 16, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> *incompatibility* is not necessarily the fault of one person or another, it's an indication of two people who cannot agree on how to come together - pun intended.



*Incompatibility* is indeed what it is.  In reality it isn't a blaming issue, one doesn't do that to the other out of malice.  People are what they are.  People cannot change what they are at their core (or at least very easily).  Sometimes it is better to cut your losses and go.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2008)

Further, sexuality develops and changes as we get older so a previously compatible couple can become incompatible later on. Not one person's fault, just the way that it is, generally.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 16, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Further, sexuality develops and changes as we get older so a previously compatible couple can become incompatible later on. Not one person's fault, just the way that it is, generally.



Yes, but when it is that way from day one, it takes awhile for the other to realize they cannot change who they are.  Again, not one person's fault.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 16, 2008)

if you go into a relationship thinking that you will change the other person, you are setting your self up to fail. People rarely change, it does happen sometimes but to steak your marital happiness on it is nuts. Now if the people are married and happy and something changes down the road thats different. From my (limited) understanding there is almost always a reason for the change, if you can figure that out then you can have a better understanding of what to do. Like call the relationship off or seek counseling. Even if one person does a drastic change i still do not understand how that is giving the other person permission to get another person on the side. I could stop having sex with my husband tmrw and still be mad as all get out if i find out he is cheating on me, BECAUSE until a legal decree breaks the marriage decree we still vowed to be with only each other. Instead of getting a girlfriend, he can talk to me (ie blame me), he can offer me help (cus im screwed up and with holding sex), he can get really drunk and forget what sex is, he can go to counsling to find out what may be the deeper issue ( and blame me there) or he can file for divorce, but he cannot get a girl friend and say its my fault because i didn't do something right. Granted in America we really really like to play the blame game and not take responisbility for our own actions but when your pecker lands in someone who isnt your wife or girlfriend (willingly) i have a really really hard time understand how anyone forced you to do it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Granted in America we really really like to play the blame game and not take responisbility for our own actions but when your pecker lands in someone who isnt your wife or girlfriend (willingly) i have a really really hard time understand how anyone forced you to do it.


 

That quote is one of those statements that it's very difficult to come up with a counter-argument for.  It expresses the outcome so simply, it's a bit like a perfect sphere, there's nothing to gain purchase on.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 16, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> it's a bit like a perfect sphere, there's nothing to gain purchase on.



:ultracool


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Granted in America we really really like to play the blame game and not take responisbility for our own actions but when your pecker lands in someone who isnt your wife or girlfriend (willingly) i have a really really hard time understand how anyone forced you to do it.


QFT



Sukerkin said:


> That quote is one of those statements that it's very difficult to come up with a counter-argument for.  It expresses the outcome so simply, it's a bit like a perfect sphere, there's nothing to gain purchase on.


artyon: :hammer:


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 17, 2008)

In order to understand what she meant, you have to know the larger context of her position, that is hard to do from one interview, and impossible from one snippet.  It's kindof like judging someone's entire MA ability from a 2 minute YouTube video, but we would never do that would we???

 Even just looking at the one thing posted here, I think the key words are "his decision" and "perfectly good man".

When Dr. Laura describes how a wife should treat her husband, the underlying condition is that the husband DESERVES to be treated that way by being a good husband - a "perfectly good man".

I have never heard her give any husband a free pass for cheating.  but I have heard her many times ask the wife why her husband felt the need to cheat.  A husband whose wife is affectionate, attentive and caring would never even consider it (unless he is a dirtbag anyway,and then he doesn't deserve the good treatment, and is not covered by her statement). 

If a wife treats a good honest husband poorly and he cheats, the point is not the he should be forgiven or not held accountable ("his decision"). I've never heard Dr Laura tell anyone that, ever.  The point is that, in the situation where the wife treated a GOOD HUSBAD poorly enough that he was tempted to cheat, the wife's behavior contributed to the destruction of the marriage (again, assuming he was a good husband, not a immoral person who would cheat anyway) and that she could improve her life, in that marriage or in her next one, by understanding what her role in the failed marriage was.



too tired to be a good wife (or husband)?  Nothing personal, but how selfish is that?

I am often too tired to do the lawn, take out the trash, go see what the 2am noise was, go shopping for curtains, or give detailed critique of her latest hair style, change the oil in all 3 cars, on and on... sometimes I am even too tired to have sex.  But, if frequently when she wanted me to do those things I had some completely reasonable, justifiable excuse not to (I worked 12 hours today and then mowed the lawn, do I really have to have sex tonight?), how happy would she be?  So, I do it all anyway, whenever she asks, and more, because she does the same for me.

You have a contract, the other party fails to deliver, do still hold up your end?   'I agree to pay $10000 for this car"  you don't get the money, do you still give up the car?  "We agree to sacrfice our own self-interest to make each other as happy as they can be" do you want to be in that deal when it goes one-sided???


Dr. Laura's message is very traditional - "Wives, treat your man right and they will treat you right.  Treat him bad and he won't stick around for it"  What's wrong with that?


----------



## Kreth (Mar 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> In order to understand what she meant, you have to know the larger context of her position...


That she's a hypocritical nutjob windbag with a talk show? :lol:


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 17, 2008)

Originally Posted by *BrandiJo* 

 
_Granted in America we really really like to play the blame game and not take responisbility for our own actions but when your pecker lands in someone who isnt your wife or girlfriend (willingly) i have a really really hard time understand how anyone forced you to do it._

_I think when good husbands cheat, wives also need to take a good hard look at their role in that as well.  They either married wrong or treated him bad.  How's that for taking responsibility?_


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 17, 2008)

Kreth said:


> ...hypocritical nutjob windbag with a talk show? :lol:


 
OK so you don't want to discuss what I wrote, you just want to bag on her.  That's fine, but you haven't countered one point that I made.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> OK so you don't want to discuss what I wrote, you just want to bag on her.  That's fine, but you haven't countered one point that I made.


Actually I thought that summed up her "position" nicely. Given her history, I'd take her recommendations on relationships about as seriously as dietary advice from Rush Limbaugh, or manners from Stern.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 17, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Meh. She slept with a program director and posed nekkid for him to get her first radio gig.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, she's just finding new ways of prostituting herself.


 
I'm glad a woman brought that up first!  LOL.

I do think she is hypocritical for a lot of the things she says vs. what she has done.  How can she make comments like these and then be involved with books like "No more Christian Nice Guy".  What kind of advice is she REALLY going to be giving?

If Dr. Phil (or any other male) had given the same advice there would be a HUGE outcry in the media about how backwards and sexist those remarks are.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 17, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> If Dr. Phil (or any other male) had given the same advice there would be a HUGE outcry in the media about how backwards and sexist those remarks are.


 
Well, good for her then, because that's how I prefer my marriage LOL "backwards and sexist".... or, more accurately, respecting of traditional gender roles.  It seems to me it's only backwards if you are facing the wrong direction.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Well, good for her then, because that's how I prefer my marriage LOL "backwards and sexist".... or, more accurately, respecting of traditional gender roles. It seems to me it's only backwards if you are facing the wrong direction.


 
Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant that it is backwards not to blame the person responsible (in this case the man cheating) and blaming it on the other party (in this case the wife). Instead of assigning blame to the man for making the choice to cheat.

I'm not sure where the respecting of traditional gender roles comes in.  I do think it is sexist though to blame a woman for not "treating her man right" and saying that is the reason for his infidelity.  

So, you are saying that when a man cheats, it's the woman's fault, and that this is the traditional gender role and is acceptable?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> In order to understand what she meant, you have to know the larger context of her position, that is hard to do from one interview, and impossible from one snippet.  It's kindof like judging someone's entire MA ability from a 2 minute YouTube video, but we would never do that would we???


There are some conclusions you can come to by a 2 minute video fairly concretely like, "boy that was dumb" or "that must have hurt" to "damn that form sucked!"

Let's _*** U ME_ that these two had marital trouble or sex problems. Explain to me how buying a hooker helped or fixed the problem? It would have been an act of selfishness, not remedy that he was seeking. The "video" we'd be looking at would be a pilot taking the plane on a spinning nose-dive and ejecting without asking or warning the copilot, but hey - why would a copilot treat his perfectly good pilot with such neglect? Hm? Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?



> Even just looking at the one thing posted here, I think the key words are "his decision" and "perfectly good man".
> 
> When Dr. Laura describes how a wife should treat her husband, the underlying condition is that the husband DESERVES to be treated that way by being a good husband - a "perfectly good man".


To ME (looks around) a "perfectly good man" values the sexual act as sacred between marital partners, the one who takes taxpayer money and spends it on a $5k call-girl instead of manning up and facing the same misery his wife faces every day? _*Isn't*_ a perfectly good man.  That became his decision. So he really can't be considered with that caveat, can he?

Can I get an "Amen?"



> I have never heard her give any husband a free pass for cheating.  but I have heard her many times ask the wife why her husband felt the need to cheat.  A husband whose wife is affectionate, attentive and caring would never even consider it (unless he is a dirtbag anyway,and then he doesn't deserve the good treatment, and is not covered by her statement).


Any good woman who loves sex, who is a free spirit and loves intimacy with her partner and who has  been cheated on would say one word to this statement: 

********.



> If a wife treats a good honest husband poorly and he cheats, the point is not the he should be forgiven or not held accountable ("his decision"). I've never heard Dr Laura tell anyone that, ever.  The point is that, in the situation where the wife treated a GOOD HUSBAD poorly enough that he was tempted to cheat, the wife's behavior contributed to the destruction of the marriage (again, assuming he was a good husband, not a immoral person who would cheat anyway) and that she could improve her life, in that marriage or in her next one, by understanding what her role in the failed marriage was.


So - if the marriage had failed, why weren't they separated or divorced first? And this was beyond cheating, this was patronizing a prostitution ring!!  Sorry, no justifications other than self-centered, self-gratifying, corrupt, immoral behavior. 

Listen, if she is willing to point the moral finger at the wife here, she needs to have a serious sit-down with her Rabbi - or maybe the Pope - or maybe the Dalai Lama because absconding with public funds to pay for illegal activity when you're the governor and cheating on your wife all at the same time??? That ain't moral behavior - but I'll tell you what is:

The PINNACLE of good moral behavior in this sad, sick story is the Governor's wife herself.  THAT woman SACRAFICED HER GOOD NAME - her REPUTATION - her SELF-RESPECT - to stand by that man while he acknowledged his error, apologized to everyone and resigned his office.  She had EVERY REASON and EVERY RIGHT to walk away, leave him be, but she STOOD BY HER VOWS AND STAYED WITH HIM THROUGH THAT PUBLIC STATEMENT.  

If women had balls, hers would be bigger than mine.



> too tired to be a good wife (or husband)?  Nothing personal, but how selfish is that?



Huh??? *needs a map*



> I am often too tired to do the lawn, take out the trash, go see what the 2am noise was, go shopping for curtains, or give detailed critique of her latest hair style, change the oil in all 3 cars, on and on... sometimes I am even too tired to have sex.  But, if frequently when she wanted me to do those things I had some completely reasonable, justifiable excuse not to (I worked 12 hours today and then mowed the lawn, do I really have to have sex tonight?), how happy would she be?  So, I do it all anyway, whenever she asks, and more, because she does the same for me.


Good for you. You're not under the strain of a political marriage. Hopefully if the two of you run into problems you will settle it morally and in accordance with the vows you took rather than the money and rocket in your pocket.



> You have a contract, the other party fails to deliver, do still hold up your end?   'I agree to pay $10000 for this car"  you don't get the money, do you still give up the car?  "We agree to sacrfice our own self-interest to make each other as happy as they can be" do you want to be in that deal when it goes one-sided???


We're all still assuming that she had something to do with this - we don't know she did or didn't. Men cheat on the best wives all the time and vice-versa. See my comment above.




> Dr. Laura's message is very traditional - "Wives, treat your man right and they will treat you right.  Treat him bad and he won't stick around for it"  What's wrong with that?


We have no way of knowing if he was mistreated or undernourished sexually nor anything at all. This is really jumping to conclusions.  And if she *DID* treat him badly? He *did* stick around for it and made the problem many, many times worse than it had to be.



DavidCC said:


> > Originally Posted by *BrandiJo*
> >
> >
> > _Granted in America we really really like to play the blame game and not take responisbility for our own actions but when your pecker lands in someone who isnt your wife or girlfriend (willingly) i have a really really hard time understand how anyone forced you to do it._
> ...


What about him treating her bad? What if she withholds sex because her husband turned into an ******* and she can't get turned on by him anymore? How's THAT for taking responsibility?


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 17, 2008)

Much like crime. The decision to steal is solely the "fault" of the person who stole. While other events like poverty, lack of opportunity, drug addiction and so on can all be "causal", it doesnt mean the person who steals is somehow exempt from "blame", responsibility and punishment for his actions.

I think thats where most of us who say "it takes two to tango" are going.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2008)

Kreth said:


> That she's a hypocritical nutjob windbag with a talk show? :lol:


Blasphemer!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Further, sexuality develops and changes as we get older so a previously compatible couple can become incompatible later on. Not one person's fault, just the way that it is, generally.


The idea is to combat that considering family.
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> Gee this is an awful lot of talk about a woman whose husband cheated on her with a whore. He did cheat on her with a whore, right? And some doctor says its the wife's fault?
> 
> I know i'm a kid and have a lot to learn but this seems to be pretty darn clear to me.


The question is why.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2008)

little_miss_fracus said:


> Uh ... okay. So ... there are some folks here who type very correct English and some who spell well and know their grammar well but type the way they talk.
> 
> Are you guys expecting me to type like an English major all the time?


Eventualy.
Sean


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 17, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Eventualy.
> Sean


That would be, "eventual_*l*_y." And if she does then we all do.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 17, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> That would be, "eventual_*l*_y." And if she does then we all do.



Oh my!  That will thin the herd a little if you make this a rule!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 18, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Oh my! That will thin the herd a little if you make this a rule!


Marshal Talk majors perhaps?
Sean


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2008)

:lol:  Very subtle, *ToD* - earn a Word-play credit .


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 18, 2008)

I just worry we'll scare all the high school juniors and seniors who come here and post somewhat intelligently ( or at least sincerely ) away. 

No l33t, no txt, just a good attempt at proper English is fine.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2008)

A valid concern, *Shesulsa*.  I don't think it hurts to hold people to a high standard tho'.  That way if they 'slip' a little it's still good - bad spelling and grammar do not give a positive impression at the end of the day if someone is trying to make a serious point.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 18, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> I just worry we'll scare all the high school juniors and seniors who come here and post somewhat intelligently ( or at least sincerely ) away.
> 
> No l33t, no txt, just a good attempt at proper English is fine.



How about the well meaning college drop out who still isn't sure where a comma goes(75% of the time but getting better at guesssing) and not sure of the spelling of alot of things either


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 18, 2008)

You know, if those members who CAN write well would correct those of use who do not (myself included in the lackeys group), within a year or so, we would all be more skillful writers!

And then something good could come from that mean old radio announcer who started all of this ruckus!

I'm game.  Get out the red pencil!


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 19, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant that it is backwards not to blame the person responsible (in this case the man cheating) and blaming it on the other party (in this case the wife). Instead of assigning blame to the man for making the choice to cheat.


 
how about instead of trying to assign blame to anyone, each party can do some introspection and figure out where they might have gone wrong, and what they can do differently in the future. Just to be super extra clear, cheating is wrong.




punisher73 said:


> I'm not sure where the respecting of traditional gender roles comes in. I do think it is sexist though to blame a woman for not "treating her man right" and saying that is the reason for his infidelity.
> 
> So, you are saying that when a man cheats, it's the woman's fault, and that this is the traditional gender role and is acceptable?


 
No I never said it was the woman's fault. BUT I think whenever a marraige falls apart both parties need to look at how they contributed to that. Dr. Laura tends to address women and their role, and that usually goes something like this:

'if your husband cheated on you it was because he was a dirtbag to begin with, or else he was driven to it by desperately trying to fill his own needs. If he was a dirtbag to begin with, you should have dated long enough to figure that out before you got married. If he was a good person but driven to make this bad decision, it was the your behavior that drove him away. If your behavior was justified (by his bad behavior) then you should have left him insead of staying in a bad marriage - and also you should have dated him long enough to know he was a jerk.' 
Notice how this puts all the CONTROL into the woman's hands. not the blame for the situation, but the control of how the situation develops.





shesulsa said:


> There are some conclusions you can come to by a 2 minute video fairly concretely like, "boy that was dumb" or "that must have hurt" to "damn that form sucked!"
> 
> Let's _*** U ME_ that these two had marital trouble or sex problems. Explain to me how buying a hooker helped or fixed the problem? It would have been an act of selfishness, not remedy that he was seeking. The "video" we'd be looking at would be a pilot taking the plane on a spinning nose-dive and ejecting without asking or warning the copilot, but hey - why would a copilot treat his perfectly good pilot with such neglect? Hm? Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


 
Sorry, I was not in any way addressing the Gov of NY. I really haven't paid much attention to that mess, so I can't say at all what was going on in their relationship or his head that made him want to do it.




shesulsa said:


> To ME (looks around) a "perfectly good man" values the sexual act as sacred between marital partners, the one who takes taxpayer money and spends it on a $5k call-girl instead of manning up and facing the same misery his wife faces every day? _*Isn't*_ a perfectly good man. That became his decision. So he really can't be considered with that caveat, can he?
> 
> Can I get an "Amen?"


I don't know what misery either of them was facing. for all we know, the wife was there and this was a 3-way deal, hence the infalted price.



shesulsa said:


> Any good woman who loves sex, who is a free spirit and loves intimacy with her partner and who has been cheated on would say one word to this statement:
> 
> ********.


You have made my point exactly!!!!
Any man who cheats on a wife like that is simply a dirtbag. But I have to ask, why would such a well-adjusted woman marry such a loser????




shesulsa said:


> So - if the marriage had failed, why weren't they separated or divorced first? And this was beyond cheating, this was patronizing a prostitution ring!! Sorry, no justifications other than self-centered, self-gratifying, corrupt, immoral behavior.
> 
> Listen, if she is willing to point the moral finger at the wife here, she needs to have a serious sit-down with her Rabbi - or maybe the Pope - or maybe the Dalai Lama because absconding with public funds to pay for illegal activity when you're the governor and cheating on your wife all at the same time??? That ain't moral behavior - but I'll tell you what is:
> 
> ...


 
The OP didn't seem to be addressing the specifc situation of the Gov of NY and neither was what I wrote.



shesulsa said:


> ......
> 
> What about him treating her bad? What if she withholds sex because her husband turned into an ******* and she can't get turned on by him anymore? How's THAT for taking responsibility?


 
Why would she withold sex? Why not withold EVERYTHING and get a divorce? Why would a woman want to trap a man she hates in her life, just to torture him like that?

BTW people don't 'turn into' *******s; you just didn't notice that they already were...


----------

