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

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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

 

[thardey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Exactly..well put.

 

[thardey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yup.

 

[Kacey]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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