In Defense of Dr. Laura's Comments about the Spitzers
March 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Dr. Laura is taking an enormous amount of heat from feminists over her comments concerning the Eliot Spitzer/Silda Spitzer situation. I certainly have many disagreements with Dr. Laura, but I also think she often has many, many good things to say.
(Full disclosure: Dr. Laura used her radio show to support two of our campaigns--Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products and Campaign in Support of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways--and she discusses our work in her book Woman Power: Transform Your Man, Your Marriage, Your Life.)
In the Salon Broadsheet blog post Dr. Laura to Silda: It's all your fault!, feminist blogger Kate Harding writes:
"Conservative radio host Laura Schlessinger has offered us a new theory on Silda Wall Spitzer: She drove her husband to cheat in the first place.
"In the last week, she has been on Hannity & Colmes, Larry King Live and the Today show, offering opinions like this:
"'And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need ... 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.'
"Gee, what a breath of fresh air.
"Now, Schlessinger spewing insane antiwoman vitriol is hardly news in itself....An income and a room of one's own will only get a woman writer so far these days; if she wants to hit the big time, a deep-seated hatred of her own gender helps a bundle.
"Of course, as the promo for Schlessinger's Larry King appearance helpfully explained, Schlessinger is just telling it like it is. And what it is like, as we all know, is this: Women are always messing up their own lives! Look at Silda Spitzer. The woman forced her husband to hire a 22-year-old prostitute! You can build a lucrative career if you're a woman willing to tell it like that."
I'm not sure I would go quite as far as Dr. Laura does here, but I believe that the Salon/Harding criticism goes way overboard, and is unfair. For one, Dr. Laura made it very clear that she was not speaking specifically about the Spitzer case and their marriage. She made it clear that she was only speaking in general. And in general, I think her comments are fair.
Let's speculate a bit about the Spitzer marriage in light of Dr. Laura's comments. It is certainly true that the relentless media script of Eliot the villain and Silda his victimized, betrayed, humiliated wife may very well be true. Perhaps she has been a devoted, loving wife who has done everything reasonably possible to have a happy marriage.
However, there are other scripts which are also possible. Perhaps they did not have a good marriage. Perhaps they have drifted apart. Perhaps they have very little sex or none at all. Perhaps they often fight. Perhaps, as is not uncommon in marriages, Silda is critical of Eliot, and he feels that somehow he can never do anything right. Perhaps Silda was angry at him quite legitimately, but over things that Eliot could no longer change. I know that critics of mine who read this will say, "There goes Sacks, figuring out a way that it's the woman's fault again." On one level, that is fair. On the other hand, we all know people who are in marriages like the one I just described. There's no reason to dismiss the possibility that the Spitzer marriage may be one of them.
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the above scenario is more or less correct. Let's look at how it would've looked to Eliot Spitzer. You are enormously successful, and are understandably proud of your success. You have worked very hard, have taken risks and public criticism, and have risen to one of the most prestigious offices in the United States. You're not sexually the young stallion you once were, but you're still relatively young, and certainly not ready to be finished sexually.
Your sex life with your wife is very limited. You can't seem to get her interested in you and you can't seem to communicate with her the way you would like to. You don't want to break up the marriage for a variety of reasons. It would greatly reduce your access to your children, who you love. It would be a big financial hit. It would be bad for your public image.
You've already seen another prominent New York politician, Rudy Giuliani, go through a divorce and it was a disaster. In Giuliani's case, he remained married to his wife, with whom he was estranged, and moved on to a relationship with another woman. Giuliani's overall behavior, while not admirable, was more or less defensible. Yet when things blew up in the Giuliani case, nobody was interested in his side, and even the fact that he was unfairly cut off from his children was given very little attention. The scandal may have even cost him the Republican presidential nomination. (To learn more about this, see my column In Defense of Giuliani’s Family Life, Providence Journal, 9/21/07)
You tell yourself you don't want to do anything to go down that road. Your kids don't deserve it, you don't deserve it, and your wife does not deserve it. On the other hand, you are lonely and sexually deprived. You're the goddamn governor of New York for crying out loud, yet everybody in the state gets to have sex but you. The waiters at the restaurant you frequent. The limo driver. The delivery boy. They all have sex, but you don't. It's infuriating. It's not fair. You want to do something to change it.
It would be very easy for me and others like me -- meaning men who have been married a long time, have good marriages, and have never cheated on their wives -- to blame Eliot Spitzer and moralize at him. I could easily condemn the behavior and say, "My father has been married for 45 years and never cheated on my mother, I have been married for 15 years and have never cheated on my wife. It's not the kind of thing we do. We're better than that, we're better than Spitzer."
But one thing I have sadly learned is that it's not always so easy and it's not always so simple. Yes, I have never cheated on my wife, but on the other hand it has been very, very easy not to. I've never been tempted, never been close, not because I'm a saint but because I'm in a good marriage. (I will add, though, that I do have self-discipline, and I do occasionally have contempt for men who create big problems for themselves because they are unable to control their sex drives.)
Getting back to Dr. Laura, what she has stated regarding the Spitzer case is a common theme of hers, and it's a good one. She says -- correctly -- that the modern wife often voices complaints about her husband and expects him to change, to do more for her, to be more attentive, to do more to fill her needs, etc. Sometimes this is perfectly appropriate. Yet when men ask the same from their wives, it is often portrayed as the man being excessively demanding, unfair, sexist, Neanderthal, or even emotionally abusive. It is a double standard, and one which hurts many marriages.
Dr. Laura's audience and readership are largely female, and one of her main goals is keeping marriages together. I have listened to her on a fair number of occasions, and it would be very wrong to claim that she wants women to stay in bad or abusive marriages. However, she is not hesitant at all to tell women that sometimes they are the ones who are causing problems in their marriages.
I don't always agree with Dr. Laura, and sometimes I may agree with her 100% and disagree with her 100% all within the span of a minute. But her central theme -- that both men and women need to pay attention to what their spouses need and want, and that both men and women can ruin a marriage by being inattentive or cold or distant or self-absorbed--is the truth.
I have often heard from readers who have told me that Dr. Laura's advice on these issues, including her books, have helped their marriages. Given the enormous pain and destruction caused by divorce, this is very important work. Dr. Laura deserves better than to be crucified for voicing the truth--in some marital breakdowns, it is women who have harmed their marriages and driven their husbands away.
"));
19 queries. 0.709 seconds.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yes, the affair was wrong. But why is society so quick to assume that a woman who destroys her marriage by divorce (and the vast majority of divorces are filed by women) is acting for a proper reason -- obviously it's the husband's fault, right?
The fact is, a large percentage of divorces are unnecessary, and are financially motivated (as shown by the decrease in divorce rates in states where there is shared parenting).
So, ladies, neither gender has a monopoly on being home-wreckers.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
It comes down to this:
People are not going to do things where they perceive that the risk/reward ratio is not in their favor. That means cheating, doing drugs, even driving thru certain parts of town. Of course, everyone is familiar with reducing risk ("What if you knew you'd never get caught?") but what about increasing reward? Would you drive thru the bad part of town if you had to save someone's life? Would you you be willing to attempt to juggle knives if you were paid 50 grand just for trying? Would you be more willing to cheat if you haven't had good sex in so long your balls are blue (or insert female euphanism here)?
Honestly, and I don't think it's just my gender here, I understand men cheating on marriage much more than I can grasp why women do it. When a guy is married with children and isn't getting sex, then his choices are to lose sex and keep his kids, or get sex and lose his kids (divorce). The man decides to "play outside the rules" rather than accept the lose-lose situation.
But anyways, to the spouses out there: The worse you treat your spouse the more likely they are to cheat on you. It's simple logic.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Tim M. @ "So, ladies, neither gender has a monopoly on being home-wreckers."
A recently-published study estimates that up to 60% of wives will cheat on their husbands. Meaning, Mrs. Spitzer may have already cheated on Eliott. Funny how no one DARES to assume that she may be standing by him because he already stood by her.
I respect that Dr. Laura is willing to accept that men have no monopoly on bad behavior.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I listen to Dr. Laura when I can on my lunch hour. She gives a lot of good advice and she has women writing to her
weekly saying her advice saved their marraige.
She in her book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands tells women there are actually two persons in the marraige and one of them is a man.
She basically tells women if you are kind and compassionate with you man he will do anything for you.
If you try to undermine him, muscle him or nag him he isn't going to treat you like a queen.
What she said was taken out of context to what Dr. Laura espouses to get more feminist hate in the public eye.
Dr. Laura gets hundreds of letters from women and men thanking her for saving their marraiges.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who said a feminist or Kate Harding saved their marraige!!!
Feminists are about gaining power and if this destroys marraiges so be it, as long their agenda is catered to they don't care.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
After Ms. Silda Spitzer processes a broken commitment of fidelity, I expect that she may get book offers and do the Oprah-The View-Good Morning America promotion tour.
Later, I expect Ms. Spitzer to run for public office – maybe the Senate or House of Representative.
I expect her to recover with the support by media, the public, Avon, Oprah will give her.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Many times husbands cheat because their wives don't consider fulfilling their physical needs as a priority. It's been common in feminist liberal circles and in socially conservative circles to demonize male sexuality. The practice has now crept into the mainstream.
Ladies it's simple, his physical needs are just as valid as your emotional needs. If you don't realize this and make taking care of his needs as well as yours a priority he'll either leave you, or; if the financial and emotional damage is too much because you have children that he loves, he'll just get what he want's by having an affair.
So take the easy route and do what you vowed to do when you got married in the first place. You know: "to have and to hold" or translated from church speak 'to provide sufficient sexual release'. Or don't. If the candy store is closed we can always just find another candy store. Your choice.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
FLASHBACK: During Valerie Bertinelli book tour, she told Oprah that her marriage failed because her husband cheated first. Oprah said, "But in your book, you stated that you cheated first."
After the interview, the media released news that both cheated and the timing was fuzzy.
http://tv.spreadit.org/valerie-bertinelli-oprah-interview-video
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Valerie+Bertinelli+oprah+cheated+
March 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
To be honest I always hasten to heap judgment on situations such as this as there are too many details outside of my sphere of knowledge.
For example, cheating within any relationship is defined as a breach of trust... there is always some form of explicit agreement that is established between a couple and it is by those rules that each partner must abide.
The tricky thing here however is that those rules, the agreement within any particular relationship are not necessarily going to be the same as someone elses relationship.
There are for example couples who regularly engage in sexual activities outside of their primary relationship... but since both parties are aware and accepting of that arrangement I would not feel comfortable defining it as cheating.
Since I have no idea what the agreement was between Mr and Mrs Spitzer, I cannot reliably condem either of them.
What many people are doing is projecting their own values and relationship arrangements onto another couple and then thinking about how they would feel in that same situation. The problem here is that just because we may prefer monogomous and faithful relationships doesn't mean that is exactly how everyone is going to do things.
If I knew for certain that he broke the trust of his wife and committed actions which she was unaware of and didn't agree to I'd have an easier time declaring her the "victim"... until then for all I know he was abiding by the tenants of their particular relationship.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Really excellent piece of editorial writing Glenn!
I could write a lot about the topic of failed marriages (and I never cheated) -- but maybe just this observation will suffice:
When a culture starts to define marriage as "hard work," we are already headed for disaster.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
On the other hand, for every "Silda Spitzer", there are a dozen "Heather Mills."
Paul McCartney (read: Husband) Ordered to Pay Heather Mills (read: Ex-wife) $48.7 Million (read: a lot of money) to Settle Divorce (read: really common)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338268,00.html
March 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
For a man with $1.6 billion in assets, Sir Paul got off reasonably well.
It is sad to see a Beatle raped by a tart.
But he wrote too many stupid love songs, so maybe it is just poetic justice?
March 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Yes Glenn there is a script in play here but maybe not the one you're considering.
Says Kate Harding in observance of feminism's one and only theme...
"spewing insane antiwoman vitriol"
"a deep-seated hatred of her own gender"
It's all about hatred in Kate's mind. A hatred that, no matter what, Kate insists is extended to all women.
Good grief. Methinks the hatred is Kate's. And it's a hatred that extends to all of creation. As scripts go the proverbial broken record has more going for it.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
(gwallan) -- "As scripts go the proverbial broken record has more going for it."
You cannot break the broken record.
zen...
March 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
GS: "Your sex life with your wife is very limited. You can't seem to get her interested in you and you can't seem to communicate with her the way you would like to. You don't want to break up the marriage for a variety of reasons. It would greatly reduce your access to your children, who you love. It would be a big financial hit. It would be bad for your public image. "
If you would switch the genders, and if the female were the one cheating due to the lack of affection (or whatever) from the male, the feminists would be falling over each other to say: you go girl.
The acceptable double standards in the Feminist Religion really go the core of why the movement needs to be superseded by a egalitarian one...
March 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Of Paul McCartney, Roy says - "But he wrote too many stupid love songs, so maybe it is just poetic justice?"
Um... That would be "Silly Love Songs", Roy. (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
Anyway, I was actually more interested in what Mike Hunter Said (March 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm):
"It's been common in feminist liberal circles and in socially conservative circles to demonize male sexuality."
My thoughts went immediately to Hugo Schwyzer's comments on ED making men less intolerable. Seems to me that Mike has hit that nail squarely on it's head.
I don't know the first thing about the Spitzer's personal lives, but I've seen a number of sucessful couples who've grown apart as they've risen up the socio-economic ladder. In almost every case I can recall, the man was caught cheating, and the woman filed for divorce. Also, in all but two odf such cases that I can think of, it has come to light that the woman was also having an affair (or affairs, as in one case) at the same time.
It seems like when one is out spending time with a fling, it provides ample time for the other to do likewise.
When it came to light that Clara Harris was also unfaithful, I was not at all suprised, since it fit so well with what I'd already been observing.
I don't know what it really means, it's just my personal observation.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Jason: "There are for example couples who regularly engage in sexual activities outside of their primary relationship... but since both parties are aware and accepting of that arrangement I would not feel comfortable defining it as cheating. Since I have no idea what the agreement was between Mr and Mrs Spitzer, I cannot reliably condem either of them."
I haven't followed this case very closely from the point of view of Mrs. Spitzer (or Mr. Spitzer for that matter), but when he did that first press conference, my wife and I both saw it in her eyes: we believe she knew all along. Now obviously ours is just conjecture ... and pretty unsophisticated conjecture at that since we do not know the players all that well. But she definitely looked like none of this has taken her by surprise. Put that together with the story that came out at the same time - that SHE was among the few of his advisors who recommended that he avoid resigning - and it sounds like he has her support.
Again, it's all a feeling.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The entire radical feminist reaction to this affair has been predictable, and ridiculous. First, they gagged over the fact that this woman stood by her husband, which they felt was degrading to womanhood. Never mind that this is what spouses usually do -- you know, for better or for worse and all that marriage mumbo jumbo the radical feminists don't believe in? Remember, for example, Owne LaFave, the newlewed husband whose wife was out having sex with a 14 year old boy? He initially stood by his wife, too -- until it got too weird for him. http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBSVL8ECYD.html Mrs. Spitzer might bail out, too, who knows? But how dare those women attack Mrs. Spitzer for deciding to stand by her husband. "Choice" is apparently a feminist virtue so long as it's a choice certain feminists approve of.
Next they attack Dr. Laura for her comments. The fact is, none of us know why a spouse does something to damage a marriage. Did Eliot act out because he was unhappy in the marriage? We have no idea. But marriage is a two-way street, something the radical feminists raraly will acknowledge. And it's the job of both parties to work at it. The husband is supposed to try to make his wife happy, and the wife is supposed to try to make the husband happy. Get it? Some feminists would tell us, without any evidence beyond their disgusted eye rolls, that most marriages are a one-way street with the husband only concerned for his own happiness. This is, of course, a lie, but it's not worth arguing with people so filled with hate.
My advice to the radical feminists is not to involve themselves in things they know nothing about, and that generally includes marriage.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Feminists always seem to follow certain patterns:
1. Angry and vile mischaracteriztion of the person that they are attacking.
2. Misleading or false statistics.
3. No recognition of anything positive, by anyone or any group, that doesn't completely agree with them.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I don't see how any of this is really our business. Oh wait, the government is using this case to defame Spitzer and not allow him to speak about ensuring that abortion stays legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Also, they are swingers, and his wife likes to have sex with young hired black men at swinger's parties. People do this, especially people with the wherewithal to make their stressful lives more interesting. Dr. Laura has it all wrong- the wife wasn't neglecting her husband. nor was the husband neglecting the wife. this was their thing and it was the easiest target to use to out them and create a media storm before they could work for some good in the world.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
There are noteworthy experiments in the field of biology which describe how male mammals will get "saturated" with having consorted with the same female, and will instead, when given a choice, opt for an identical looking female who is simply "new".
It may well be that there are some "receptors" (possibly phermonal) or equivalent molecular or neurological memory mechanisms at work in males (and probably also a "newness" appreciation mechanism), which operate collectively to produce a waning arousal pattern towards the familiar female, and a comparatively higher arousal towards the "new" female.
There are also abudant experiments which show that males of many species, upon experiencing a competitive social victory (rams, bucks, humans) against other males of the same species, experience a significant surge in testosterone.
The wife doesn't need to be inattentive, cold or otherwise de-motivating of the man for these forces to operate.
Men who don't stray, in my view, are men who are staying faithful out of respect for their wife, and out of a desire to not hurt their wife and children. It is not that they don't find other women attractive.
So, it could be that he didn't care about his wife any more, but that would not explain the risk-taking with the emotional health of his kids, or his risk-taking with his own career for that matter.
Therefore, my two best guesses are:
- he's hooked on sex as a way of treating sub-clinical depression or as a basic addiction, or
- he has no moral compass (despite successfully prosecuting criminals against well-defined laws.)
Of course, it could be both.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Tim Murray said...
My advice to the radical feminists is not to involve themselves in things they know nothing about, and that generally includes marriage.
Precisely. This is the wedge available to us that is rarely used. When feminists prognosticate about issues affecting men it genuinely begs the question...how the hell would they know? It's not their demographic. Why should anybody assume they are qualified to speak to those issues?
It's past time we started asking THOSE questions.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat.
Are you serious????
Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Cheating in a marriage is wrong. There's no justification. Ever.
If your spouse doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work, that doesn't mean you have justification to cheat. It means you must make a decision: "Do I want to stick around to see if s/he will want to work on the marriage in the future? Or do I go on with my own life and file divorce proceedings?" Neither one of those choices includes cheating, which is just another nail driven into the proverbial coffin.
A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
AP hypothesized: "Therefore, my two best guesses are:
- he's hooked on sex as a way of treating sub-clinical depression or as a basic addiction, or
- he has no moral compass (despite successfully prosecuting criminals against well-defined laws.)
PK adds: This is no big surprise. The man is a Democrat elitist after all. Literally. He's a silver-spoon trust-fund baby who built a career on tearing his colleagues down for the fun of it. He's an unlikable a**hole.
Would you want to be him? What you or I take for granted is inconceivable for him: Sitting back at the end of a day, cracking open a beer (or whatever your poison) and watching some TV and chatting casually with the wife. This poor sap has lived _his whole life_ in a constant, ruthless pursuit of power. If you've ever seen "Sex and the City" and it's clones or Seinfeld, Manhattanites are constantly fretting about what they can get away with doing to others and worrying what someone is planning to do or say about them. It's a big rat race with the "winners" living in noisy, rat infested townhouses that's worth about $50K in the rest of the country.
I don't think the guy needed a sleazy hooker. I think he needed to go fishing and not at the Hamptons. Or maybe do some plinking at the range. He wanted to get away and vacation from himself. If he wasn't a Democrat scumbag, I'd feel sorry for him.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
What many people do not realize is that when people give advice and they are speaking to a particular audience or about a specific incident making it more general, people tend to speak with the genders and the rolls that they play in tact. This does not mean however that the advice is not applicable if the rolls were reversed. I have been accused of telling women not be fully participating members of the community because I gave them advice on how to stay safer from rape (ex. park in lighted areas, do not go out alone, do not get drunk thereby impairing your judgement, etc.). I was verbally berated by the women on a woman's site even though I stated these are rules for men and women to stay safer in all situations but that did not matter to them because I was on their site. My intention was of course for those that are familiar with me not to say only women have to do these things, to be honest nobody has to but then if you become a victim of some sort you have to analyze your part in it. If you do not change and the same happens again you do only have yourself to blame.
So, that being said I find Dr. Laura's advice to be great advice for both parties in the marriage.
PS for Glenn, Yes it is your site and you can do as you please but I just had a conversation with Annie proclaiming how on men's sites the profanity and vulgarity is notably less frequent and we particularly discussed using words that may offend people and their religion and then you used the same word, I am a little disappointed and felt I had to comment or risk appearing hypocritical, hope you understand . . .
b
March 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
"A former driver and aide to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey yesterday made the bombshell claim that Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay - because he was the other man in bed with them."
"Matos McGreevey's basic argument in her divorce war with the former gov is that he covered up his homosexuality and tricked her into a loveless marriage. She said today that the stories of sexual trysts were "completely false.""
""It's frustrating to hear her call Gov. Spitzer a hypocrite while she's out there being as dishonest as anyone could be about her own life," said Pedersen, 29. "
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172008/news/regionalnews
/i_was_mcg_and_wifes_three_way_sex_stud___102326.htm
Adultury, homosexuality, divorce, and a lying wife.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Surfergurl asks - "Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat."
I don't believe that's what Dr. Schlessinger (nor Glenn, nor anyone else who's comment here) is saying. She seems to be only inplying that lack of attention to the needs of one's spouse (and it definately cuts both ways) can lead to a situation in which one will be more likely to cheat.
I don't take it as an apology for cheaters, but rather advise on how to prevent cheating.
Over the years, I've seen quite a bit of cheating. One reaction I've had is to wonder how to make sure it wouldn't happen in my marriage. Personally, I think Dr. Laura understands such situations very well.
Just reading this post reminds me that my wife likes to be shown that I still care about her, so I'm now planning on stopping off for some roses on my way home today.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Surfergurl pontificates: "Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat.
Are you serious????
Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Cheating in a marriage is wrong. There's no justification. Ever.
If your spouse doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work, that doesn't mean you have justification to cheat. It means you must make a decision: "Do I want to stick around to see if s/he will want to work on the marriage in the future? Or do I go on with my own life and file divorce proceedings?" Neither one of those choices includes cheating, which is just another nail driven into the proverbial coffin.
A cheater is a cheater is a cheater."
Even in theory, I think you're being extreme. "Ever?" Have you ever read or heard of Lady Chatterly's lover? Consider Newt Gingrich who was criticized for divorcing his cancer-ridden wife. These situations are extreme, granted, but you made a broad generalization.
In addition, the simple fact of the matter is that it's difficult for men to get a divorce. This is like a reverse-Muslim country where men are second class citizens especially in divorce court. Heather Mills just got through with a rant that her evil, powerful ex-husband Paul McCartney got away with, due to his evil power, only giving her $50 million bucks. The horrors! Imagine if he was twice as powerful! Then he would have given her a 100 million bucks!
A lot of this depends upon values. You know the Groucho saying about sleeping with someone for a million dollars? Sure, these guys may be louses and cheaters (see what I said about him above) but they're also wealthy and well-connected as sin. Many socialites don't care. Look at Hillary! She stuck with her cheater!
March 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Necessity is the mother of all invention and actions such as Spitzer's are siblings of invention. Whether it was an unjustified necessity - we will never know. Heck even the guy himself may not know. But it is interesting that the guy is shamed if he does that. Yet do you remember the last time a woman was shamed for having an affair?
March 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
correction - married woman having an affair and being shamed in the media?
March 17th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Slwerner observes: "I don't believe that's what Dr. Schlessinger (nor Glenn, nor anyone else who's comment here) is saying. She seems to be only inplying that lack of attention to the needs of one's spouse (and it definately cuts both ways) can lead to a situation in which one will be more likely to cheat.
I don't take it as an apology for cheaters, but rather advise on how to prevent cheating.
Over the years, I've seen quite a bit of cheating. One reaction I've had is to wonder how to make sure it wouldn't happen in my marriage. Personally, I think Dr. Laura understands such situations very well. "
PK observes: If you're interested, I heard that there's a book on the subject supposedly hundreds of years old written by a Russian on how to prevent women from cheating. There are also books available on how to detect patterns in spouses planning to cheat (Look to see if they're changing their clothing/grooming, see if they're picking up new interests, etc.)
Simply treating one's spouse well is no guarantee of fidelity. I have friends who treated their spouse great and they were cheated on. It was just in the nature of that person. Certain people are "cheaters" no matter who they are married to. That's why it's funny when the person whose helping the other one cheat thinks they'll clean up their act after they settle down with them.
Slwerner continues: "Just reading this post reminds me that my wife likes to be shown that I still care about her, so I'm now planning on stopping off for some roses on my way home today."
Are these "I'm sorry I cheated on you" flowers or "Please don't cheat on me" flowers? :-)
If I do such a thing, my wife would be immediately paranoid about me doing so wondering what I've done wrong. Wait for Easter, Romeo.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
# Surfergurl Says:
Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat.
Are you serious????
Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Cheating in a marriage is wrong. There's no justification. Ever.
If your spouse doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work, that doesn't mean you have justification to cheat. It means you must make a decision: "Do I want to stick around to see if s/he will want to work on the marriage in the future? Or do I go on with my own life and file divorce proceedings?" Neither one of those choices includes cheating, which is just another nail driven into the proverbial coffin.
A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.
Well said Surfergurl! A Cheat is a Cheat no matter how you slice it.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Surfergurl Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat.
Are you serious????
Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Cheating in a marriage is wrong. There's no justification. Ever.
If your spouse doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work, that doesn't mean you have justification to cheat. It means you must make a decision: "Do I want to stick around to see if s/he will want to work on the marriage in the future? Or do I go on with my own life and file divorce proceedings?" Neither one of those choices includes cheating, which is just another nail driven into the proverbial coffin.
A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.
= = =
Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person shoot them?
Are you serious????
Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Shooting a husband in the back or setting him on fire while he is sleeping is wrong. There's no justification. Ever.
If your spouse does things that make a marriage fail, that doesn't mean you have justification to to kill them. It means you must make a decision: "Do I want to stick around to see if s/he will want to work on the marriage in the future? Or do I go on with my own life and file divorce proceedings?" Neither one of those choices includes murder, which is just another nail driven into the proverbial coffin.
A murderer is a murderer is a murderer.
b
March 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
PolishKnight - "Are these "I'm sorry I cheated on you" flowers or "Please don't cheat on me" flowers? :-)"
While I understand where your question is coming from, they're really just "I love to make you smile and see you happy" flowers. Actually, I do this with some frequency. She often buys me gifts as well.
I believe that one OUGHT TO wish to make their spouse, the love of their life, happy. Life too easily becomes bogged down in routine. Small tokens, like flowers (or cards, if flowers aren't in the budget, as when we were first married 23 years ago) are a surprisingly effect means of interjecting a little spice in to break up monotony – not to mention just how well a woman will respond when you've taken the time to warm up her engine before going for a drive – if you get my drift.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Who is more faithful?
Is it the person who stays married even though his or her spouse "doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work" and who has a sexual affair after perhaps 10 or more years of complete abstinence, or is it the person who concludes that my spouse no longer wants "to do the things that make a marriage work" and initiates no-fault divorce proceedings?
March 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Michael H Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Who is more faithful?
Is it the person who stays married even though his or her spouse "doesn't want to do the things that make a marriage work" and who has a sexual affair after perhaps 10 or more years of complete abstinence, or is it the person who concludes that my spouse no longer wants "to do the things that make a marriage work" and initiates no-fault divorce proceedings?
= = =
NICE!
b
March 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
slwerner Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
PolishKnight - "Are these "I'm sorry I cheated on you" flowers or "Please don't cheat on me" flowers? :-)"
While I understand where your question is coming from, they're really just "I love to make you smile and see you happy" flowers. Actually, I do this with some frequency. She often buys me gifts as well.
I believe that one OUGHT TO wish to make their spouse, the love of their life, happy. Life too easily becomes bogged down in routine. Small tokens, like flowers (or cards, if flowers aren't in the budget, as when we were first married 23 years ago) are a surprisingly effect means of interjecting a little spice in to break up monotony – not to mention just how well a woman will respond when you've taken the time to warm up her engine before going for a drive – if you get my drift.
= = =
I do not get it. Why do we not ever hear advice given to women interjecting a little spice in to break up monotony not to mention just how well a man will respond when you've taken the time to warm up his engine before going for a drive – if you get my drift.
b
March 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I like the fact that Dr. Laura called out the ladies. I used to always hear the old time supervisors (at a plant I worked at) talk about cheating on their wives. I was appalled and I would say things like, "I never cheated on my ex-wife, and she was a b*tch."
Then they told me a simple, old, and crass truth: If a man can't get it at home, he'll get it somewhere else. I would criticize them for being slaves to their lower natures, and say that I would never do it. But, when I honestly look at how things were going in my marriage I probably would have left the marriage (my marriage fell into the 75% bucket, she filed) either by cheating or divorcing her so I could meet someone new. I say this because, after a while, I would have gotten over resenting her coldness and found someone with some warmth.
We can question cheating, or whether the drivers behind the cheating are justified; but I think time would be better spent on examining the drivers. Why is the wife cold? Why are his emotional, sexual, physical needs? What level of needs is she comfortable in fulfilling? Are his needs reasonable (having sex twice a day might be a need, but not a very reasonable expectation)? Are her needs being met? Are her needs reasonable? (I always got the feeling that my ex-wife wanted me to be like a lap-dog, always paying attention to her and trying to please her. Not very reasonable in my estimation.) Can the wife meet the husband’s needs (and vice-versa) at an acceptable level? (Instead of twice a day, three times a week?) If the needs aren’t met, why does he choose a hooker? If her needs aren’t met, why does she go for the divorce lawyer? (Putting aside the ‘It’s the right thing to do’ argument, why end the relationship? Why not have a marriage to take care of certain needs and a lover to finish of the rest?)
I think it takes guts, in today’s all-or-nothing climate (as in, the woman gets all she wants in a marriage, or she wants nothing to do with it), for Dr. Laura to suggest women take a look at the impact of their own actions. Yes, loneliness is an acceptable justification for cheating; but, if a woman is intent on making her marriage work (there is a sizeable portion that want to) she should take a look at what the common drivers of cheating are, and see if any of her behaviors fall into that category.
Later,
BigB
March 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Christina: "Also, they are swingers, ....."
Do you know this to be true, or is this conjecture on your part? If it is true, as my comment above said, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
In terms of Dr. Laura, you (and Surfergurl and probably others) are missing her point.
Far too many women think "woe is me" if their husband cheats..as if she were the only victim. While in reality, adult relationships are never so cut and dry and there may have been quite a history to build up to him becoming a cheater. Instead, women should be empowered to realize they have the ability to save their marriage and head off many types of cheating by realizing that their husband's needs are just as important as their needs. Everyday, men are bombarded by sexist/chivalrous messages saying that they should put their needs ahead of the needs of their wife. Unfortunately, women are being bombarded by exactly the same ideals under a false sense of entitlement whereby they are being taught to expect that men should put the woman's needs ahead of his own. So what is happening is society is teaching men to be slaves and women to be masters.
Instead, and what Dr. Laura seems to be saying, men AND women should be socialized to put the needs of the other ahead of their own.
The point: if you don't want your husband to cheat, realize that he is a human being with human wants and needs - just like you. And just because you don't share the same needs, does not mean that his needs are any less important then your needs.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Bernie Misiura laments, perhaps in jest - "I do not get it. Why do we not ever hear advice given to women"
Well, seeing as how you're a man, it MUST be your fault!
Actually, there are a very "Dr. Lauras" who do offer such advise to women - there just drowned out by the screaming of manipulative feminist agitators, whose advise to women is more along the lines of how to mistreat men.
As far as that other advise, men typically don’t need their engines warmed up near so much as do women. There’s a lot of truth in the comparison of women (from a sexuality perspective) to diesel engines. Get them properly warmed up, and they’ll just keep running and running. Even when sex is a pretty much daily thing, a couple can still get that “wow” factor of deep, passionate love making just by taking the little bit a of time required to set the stage properly.
I don’t pretend to know what drives men like Spitzer into such high-risk behaviors, nor why 40 to 60 percent of women (depending on which stats you read) will cheat on their husbands. I only speak for myself, and to a degree, for my wife. Much as Dr. Laura now advises, my wife hasn’t neglected my “physical needs”, and, just like Dr. Laura suggests will be the outcome, I don’t feel any compulsion to cheat on her. I can also tell you that when after I’ve done my preparations (as mentioned above), my wife’s attentiveness to me “kicks up a notch” – for days.
I know that this particular forum is probably a poor choice to bring up such things, since so many here have not been so fortunate with the opposite sex. And, I’m fully aware that what works in one case does not work in many others. But, like Glenn, I’m simply aiming at defending Dr. Schlessinger’s comments, even if our approach’s may differ. I certainly do not wish to offend anyone, I just want to take a stand for Dr. Laura’s advise.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Let me get this straight. You're saying one person can MAKE another person cheat.
No, you can't MAKE someone cheat.
However, you can put them in a situation where it is their "best" option to get their needs/desires met.
I can't make you shoot someone, but if I put you at one end of a long hallway, a gun in your hand, a known serial rapist with a knife on the other end of the hall, and tell you that the lights are going out in 60 seconds.... odds are he's going to die by your hand. I didn't make you do it, but it was your best option.
Take a man, put him in a bad marriage where his wife doesn't want to have sex with him, and give him the other option of a divorce where he'll lose a chuck of his finances and access to his children... What is his best option? It is to break the rules.
Why women cheat, I still don't understand. My only guess would be to avoid having to take care of themselves (securing the next man to do so before they leave the current one). Is that even comparable to the moral dilemma men face? Is that what it takes for the "more moral" gender to decide to break the rules?
If I do such a thing, my wife would be immediately paranoid about me doing so wondering what I've done wrong. Wait for Easter, Romeo.
Mine would call it "being Demonspawn" :) Altho it's rarely flowers. Usually it's cleaning the litterbox (her chore) before it becomes a problem.
Yet do you remember the last time a woman was shamed for having an affair?
Um.. no. I was chatting with a feminist aquantiance about Dr. Laura's comments. She was ranting about "well if Mrs. Peloski went out and got a young stud, would people be blaming Mr. Peloski?" I replied: "That's the wrong question... the right question is if it would even make the news."
March 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I heard Spitzer's public apology, but it didn't say anything about what was really going on in his marriage.
I think his marriage is his an his wife's business.
His breaking the law is another issue.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Demonspawn ”Why women cheat, I still don't understand.” & ” Is that even comparable to the moral dilemma men face?”
I think that this would make a great topic for one of Glenn’s Feminist sympathizer guest to take on.
Even though I am, once again, no expert on the subject my wife has talked with friends of hers who have cheated on their husbands. One lady, in particular, had suffered from issue of self-esteem, having gained weight. She was, for lack of a better way to put it, easy pickin’s for an unscrupulous man who tapped into her self-esteem to manipulate her into an affair. Her husband forgave her, and they are still married – apparently happily, judging by their behavior at the recent wedding of their oldest daughter.
(And, as Surfergurl points out, “A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.” Still, might we still have compassion and forgiveness for someone who is truly sorry for what they’ve done?)
Another was seeking companionship on the side, since her husband travelled for business and was gone more than he was home. Her husband caught her, and he moved out. She filed for divorce; but she dropped it, and are apparently going through counseling trying to get back together.
Another readily admitted to having become bored with her husband, and took off for a week with some rebel-on-a-bike that another woman set her up with. She got back together with her husband, but they’ve since separated but not divorced.
These are the only three I know much about. It seems like most of the other women she and I know who been cheaters have been more along the lines Demonspawn suggests – looking for the next best thing.
Overall, my limited knowledge would suggest there are a variety of reasons women cheat – same as with men. But, one huge difference is the way in which they will be treated by their peers. For instance, my wife has no problem accepting them for their faults, and willing listens to them when they wish to explain themselves. On the other hand, a couple of my friends have cheated on their wives, and I don’t really know how to interact with them any more. One ex-friend left his wife and four kids to shack-up with a co-worker. I haven’t spoken with him since – out of absolute disgust with him.
I actually have a better idea of why women I’ve known cheat than I do about the men, simply because I don’t want to ask, and they don’t want to tell.
We, as a society, have become conditioned to view infidelity as something men do to women; yet anyone who’s been paying any attention at all knows that it’s just as likely that a woman will cheat as will a man. We’ve also been recently entreated to all manner of speculation regarding the motives of the rich and powerful men who cheat. Little is mentioned of women who cheat. I think it’s high time that their misdeeds get equal attention, er, I mean equal treatment.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Buying a whore is illegal. Though emotions are hurt, adultery is still legal. The government has many rules; however, being unfaithful is lawful.
A man commits adultery because he cannot control lust. Lust does not start when you’re naked in bed. It starts with looking too much, and then moves to inappropriate words.
My head use to spin on my shoulders for a pretty woman until I read Matthew 5:27-28. The wisdom tipped over my apple cart.
“"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:27-28;&version=47;
If a man writes down what he could loss before he commits adultery, he will quickly arrive at a sober reality.
1. Maybe your job
2. Respect and trust of your wife
3. Respect and trust of your children
4. Disrespect your father and mother
5. If you are a leader, loss of moral authority
6. loss of marriage, so lose your kid; 18 years of income; more than 50% of your property; certain liberties.
7. Get a disease
8. Waste money on strange woman
6. Loss of self-respect
to name a few.
Defining lust helps so you know if you are or not. Billy Graham said lust is a second look.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
slwerner Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Bernie Misiura laments, perhaps in jest - "I do not get it. Why do we not ever hear advice given to women"
Well, seeing as how you're a man, it MUST be your fault!
Actually, there are a very "Dr. Lauras" who do offer such advise to women - there just drowned out by the screaming of manipulative feminist agitators, whose advise to women is more along the lines of how to mistreat men.
As far as that other advise, men typically don’t need their engines warmed up near so much as do women. There’s a lot of truth in the comparison of women (from a sexuality perspective) to diesel engines. Get them properly warmed up, and they’ll just keep running and running. Even when sex is a pretty much daily thing, a couple can still get that “wow” factor of deep, passionate love making just by taking the little bit a of time required to set the stage properly.
= = =
Careful you are running into a slippery slope . . . "Now women are just machines so that proves you men think of women as property like a truck" . . . sardonic grin
b
March 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The post is 100% spot on except this single comment: "I know that critics of mine who read this will say 'There goes Sacks, figuring out a way that it's the woman's fault again.' On one level, that is fair."
I don't really see any way, how that specific criticism would be fair.
Otherwise, it's a great post, one of the best I've ever seen on this board. Good job Glenn!
March 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
slwerner Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
= = =
What I find interesting is that it seems when women cheat many more men take back the woman then women who take back the man when they cheat. (This is regarding normal people not celebrities because the have different stakes)
b
March 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Mark Ruffolo Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Buying a whore is illegal.
= = =
Not ALLWAYS true.
b
March 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Bernie Misiura - "What I find interesting is that it seems when women cheat many more men take back the woman then women who take back the man when they cheat."
While I didn't mention it specifically, that's also been my take as well. The men who've been cheated on seem to want to keep it quite. I once though that they did this out of the shame for being cheated on (as an affront to their masculinity). But, seeing my friend at his daughters wedding, it occurred to me that the reason he never mentions it is that he wishes to protect his wife from the scorn of others.
Conversely, the women who've been cheated on don't seen to have anywhere near the reservation about telling others about their men’s failings. I'd always taken it that they wished to use peer pressure to help keep him in-line in the future. But, maybe they were just looking to humiliate them.
Again, it would be fascinating to have a woman (who’s also a Feminist) take a stab at explaining these things. Dan (of Dan & Jamie infamy) proved to be an intellectual light-weight, who could never have begun to seriously address any issues. And Jamie never bothered to join in at all. Perhaps Q Grrl might come back and take a stab at it.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Mark Ruffolo Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
= = =
God also made me to have the urge to look, if he will truly punish me for designing me that way I am not sure I would care to know him. The book was written 2000 years ago for simple shepherds, with simple ideas to grasp and learn from, Today I believe that this means nothing to excess and think before you act, I could be wrong but so could anyone on something that old and translated into other languages.
b
March 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The men who've been cheated on seem to want to keep it quite. I once though that they did this out of the shame for being cheated on (as an affront to their masculinity). But, seeing my friend at his daughters wedding
You could of stopped the sentence right there and you would of had your reason.
"His Daughter"
The same daughter he would likely only see for 4 days a month if he left his wife over the adultery.
That's why more men "put up with" infidelity vs. women. Men have more to lose when the relationship goes south.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
...However, she is not hesitant at all to tell women that sometimes they are the ones who are causing problems in their marriages.
I don't always agree with Dr. Laura, and sometimes I may agree with her 100% and disagree with her 100% all within the span of a minute. But her central theme -- that both men and women need to pay attention to what their spouses need and want, and that both men and women can ruin a marriage by being inattentive or cold or distant or self-absorbed--is the truth. Dr. Laura deserves better than to be crucified for voicing the truth--in some marital breakdowns, it is women who have harmed their marriages and driven their husbands away.
If only it were "some" marital breakdowns for Dr. Laura. She has said that she will never have to write "The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives" (as a companion to her "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands") because it is wives nigh on exclusively who are responsible for bad marriages.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I meant to put quotes around the first paragraph.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Harq al-Ada Says "If only it were "some" marital breakdowns for Dr. Laura. She has said that she will never have to write "The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives" (as a companion to her "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands") because it is wives nigh on exclusively who are responsible for bad marriages."
Harq--do you have a source for that?--GS
March 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Surfergirl --
Oh crap Glenn! Another one. Another thinking female. Your site is atrracting them in swarms now.
"Look. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Cheating in a marriage is wrong. There's no justification. Ever."
This woman is clearly into Kant.
I already like her voice.
Why can't you find these women in the grocery store?
March 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Demonspawn - You could of stopped the sentence right there and you would of had your reason."
Nine times (or more) out of ten, I say you were right regarding your observation here.
But, this was truly the exception. Their daughter was 20 years old, and their son is just shy of 18. And, both of them adore their father.
If they had divorced (which was, from what my wife relates, seriously considered for a time), the kids would likely have sided with him – the wife and daughter had had a particularly acrimonious relationship, which got worse when the infidelity of the mother came to light. After learning what her mother had done, this daughter had moved out and was living with her boyfriend (now husband) and would have nothing to do with her mother until her father went to her to tell her that he had forgiven her mother and wished for her to do the same.
But, by the time I saw him at the wedding, he was all-over his wife, holding her tight and proudly telling everyone what a wonderful job his wife had done in raising their children. I knew of the infidelity, but few others there were aware of it. So I first though he was being somewhat hypocritical or mocking in the way he spoke so glowingly about his wife. Then it dawned on me that he truly loved her, had forgiven her, and only wished for people to see her in a good light.
He’s a very successful banker, and I’d always admired his business acumen; but on that day I found that I admired him much more for his courage and commitment. If he says his wife is forgiven, I’ll gladly honor his choice, and I will treat her with the respect he wishes her to be treated with.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I saw a really interesting Swedish film yesterday called 'Together'. It's about a woman who leaves her husband because he hit her.
But the film seemed to make it clear that his agression was really an expression of how powerless he was. And it showed really poignantly how he had nothing after his wife left. No power. No control over anything. He was ruined. And his son was lost without him.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
"Harq--do you have a source for that?--GS"
I remembered hearing her say it a couple of years ago, but I can't remember the source. Fortunately I found the transcripts of two interviews with similar statements. The infantilizing of men in these quotes is equally irritating to me as the woman-blaming.
Here's part of an interview with Larry King:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/09/lkl.00.html
KING: What's the proper, care and feeding of wives?
SCHLESSINGER: I don't need to write that book, because men are born of women, they are trained by women, they date marry that are trained by women, they marry women they are trained by women. A lot of what women get from men is their own doing, and that's why I wrote this book because we primarily have the control in the relationships of the quality of the relationships.
And from Harper Collins:
http://www.harpercollins.com/author/authorExtra.aspx?authorID=8708&isbn13=9780060520618&displayType=bookinterview
"Are you going to write the book for men on the proper care and feeding of wives?"
"Nope. Men are born of women and between girlfriends and then a wife; men spend their entire lives in the tutelage of women. What women accept or reject is largely the guiding force for what men will and won't do. When they are treated with the Three A's, they naturally, and in gratitude and affection, give their women the attention, regard, respect, support and love they want."
March 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
SCHLESSINGER: I don't need to write that book, because men are born of women, they are trained by women, they date marry that are trained by women, they marry women they are trained by women. A lot of what women get from men is their own doing, and that's why I wrote this book because we primarily have the control in the relationships of the quality of the relationships.
Ya... but it's true.
Since the late industrial revolution, we are no longer men raised by men.... we are men raised by women and accepting (only knowing) a female's definition of masculinity.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I hope I did not offend Surfergirl with the grocery store remark.
I know she just has everything delivered.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
"The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands .."
"If you try to undermine him, muscle him or nag him he [your husband] isn't going to treat you like a queen"
Did Dr. Laura really say or write these things? If so she's still a woman-firster, no matter how much some of you guys want to tell me how great she is. The book title is condescending, and the second statement ..well..why does she think women should be treated like queens? Why does she want men to treat them that way? I wouldn't expect any woman to treat me like a king, and if she did I'd probably get suspicious, as well as lose interest in her.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Doctor Laura just wants a kind of demilitarized zone of passive-aggression between the sexes.
I believe she needs to read more Nietzsche. Maybe Jung or Freud.
Or maybe just listen to old Beatles CDs.
She is not a deep thinker.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:09 am
In general I feel sorry for women who do not know how important sex is to a man. They withhold sex in order to gain power in the relationship. All the men I have ever known were happiest when they just got laid and had 5 one hundred dollar bills in their wallet to spend on nothing in particular.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Lance: "Everyday, men are bombarded by sexist/chivalrous messages saying that they should put their needs ahead of the needs of their wife. "
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant:
"Everyday, men are bombarded by sexist/chivalrous messages saying that they should put their wife's needs ahead of the needs of their own."
Weird.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Colleen: "They withhold sex in order to gain power in the relationship."
The unfortunate thing is they don't realize that they are hated and scorned for withholding sex and the power they think they have is all an illusion as each day that goes by he will get further and further away from her emotionally.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I tried to find some comment that "Dr" Laura made about David Vitter, the right-wing "family values" guy who also loved visiting prostitutes (and who never left office, by the way). Amazingly, I could not find any comments that the rabidly right-wing "Dr" Laura made about that Republican's illicit and illegal doings. I wonder why. I guess that Mrs. David Vitter was not properly caring for her husband and it was her lack of being sexually available to her husband that caused him to stray. Or does she only have nasty, hateful comments about Democrats?
Glenn says, "Dr. Laura made it very clear that she was not speaking specifically about the Spitzer case and their marriage. She made it clear that she was only speaking in general." Are you serious? Who do you think she was talking about? She's a hateful woman who should get a part-time job with the Taliban.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:50 am
"Doctor Laura just wants a kind of demilitarized zone of passive-aggression between the sexes."
I think that describes most relationship advice.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Dr. Laura is fair and if I were her I would not be the least bit concerned about the Fems who disagree with her and slander her. They use the word hatefull to describe Dr. Laura. But anybody can see how phony that is. Nobody is more hateful than the run-of-the-mill Feminist.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I didn't realize that I was hateful because I am a feminst. Thank you for enlightening me. Have you heard some of the vile things that woman has said? If she spoke to men in the same derogatory manner she speaks to women, I bet you'd change your tune.
Dr. L. appeals to some females for the same reason that conservative religion appeals to them--they do not have self esteem and need to be told what to do, how to think, and how to behave. Be good little Christians and your husbands might just stay with you.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Colleen West Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 12:09 am
In general I feel sorry for women who do not know how important sex is to a man. They withhold sex in order to gain power in the relationship. All the men I have ever known were happiest when they just got laid and had 5 one hundred dollar bills in their wallet to spend on nothing in particular.
Lance Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Colleen: "They withhold sex in order to gain power in the relationship."
The unfortunate thing is they don't realize that they are hated and scorned for withholding sex and the power they think they have is all an illusion as each day that goes by he will get further and further away from her emotionally.
= = =
Truer things have never been said
b
March 18th, 2008 at 1:28 am
jeana Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Be good little Christians and your husbands might just stay with you.
= = =
That is so despicable
.
.
.
.
.
NOT
b
March 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
In my few decades of observations on marriages, including my own, I've come to the conclusion that it is negligent wives that keep hookers in business. It is reasonable to assume that most husbands marry because they like their partners, and for longer or shorter, they want that sex-partner to fulfill their needs. Some of us are even willing to reciprocate.
Absent that woman as a willing, or loving accomplice, most men will look elsewhere, out of necessity. Any wonder?
And the same for women too!
For the immensely valuable service that paid women provide, they often get put down, persecuted, prosecuted, despised by society, which they certainly do not deserve. When uncouth men put down easy women, even they can be made to think twice by asking them: what would we do without them? That's a start for appreciating sex-workers.
In an interview a sex-worker even stated that sex is a secondary issue for many clients, closeness and companionship was the primary reason for her having such a good clientele. She had no moviestar looks, but a rather average appearance, yet she was obviously an excellent psychologist.
IMHO one hooker is worth a dozen Ph.D. social workers in Gross Domestic Happiness! They should be legal, respected and protected by society but in a bible-ruled society it may be too much to ask.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:43 am
"Have you heard some of the vile things that woman has said? If she spoke to men in the same derogatory manner she speaks to women, I bet you'd change your tune."
On her show she is mean to men and women alike. However her shaming of women who have normal sexual relationships (which means sex before marriage) is a special kind of f----d up.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Lester Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
IMHO one hooker is worth a dozen Ph.D. social workers in Gross Domestic Happiness! They should be legal, respected and protected by society but in a bible-ruled society it may be too much to ask.
= = =
Both sentences are a shame
b
March 18th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Who wouldn't be happy with $500 in their wallet? I'm not sure what that has to do with male/female relationships, but ok. I'd be thrilled with $400. Or $300.
It sounds like the males on this conservative website have unhappy relationships with women. This appears to be a pseudo counseling site to air your grievances about my sex. So I will try to help. If she is actually withholding it from you for some malevolent reason, then I don't know what to tell you. But there most likely is another reason. One, she may be tired (I know many men are always ready and willing to go, but women are not necessarily that way. If you're tired, you won't want to have sex; it will seem like a chore.) Two, you may have been a jerk to her or mean or rude and irritated her. And yes, we do remember that and it sours our amorous feelings. Three, she may forget (my husband has to remind me sometimes, like, "You know, it's BEEN A MONTH!!" Sometimes time flies and you don't even know it).
Talk to her. That is the best way to get some loving. Tell her you miss her and want to be with her. Make a date for sex. Anger and bitterness will get you nowhere and will eat you up inside. Everyone deserves to be satisfied.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:11 am
jenna, not bad but it is a two way street, she can make a date for sex since you admit that we are always ready to go, you know this, generally women make us men guess if she is mad at us (open the communications if you are we do not know if you do not tell us, guys like to fix things and I am sure they will try if they have knowledge), it is not hard to figure out whether it has been a month or not so I do not buy into that . . .
Your comments seem to indicate you want only men to work at the relationship and relieve women of all responsibilities of it . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
jeana said...
I didn't realize that I was hateful because I am a feminst. Thank you for enlightening me. Have you heard some of the vile things that woman has said? If she spoke to men in the same derogatory manner she speaks to women, I bet you'd change your tune.
Dr. L. appeals to some females for the same reason that conservative religion appeals to them--they do not have self esteem and need to be told what to do, how to think, and how to behave. Be good little Christians and your husbands might just stay with you.
Do you agree with the tone of Kate Harding's piece then?
For example...
spewing insane antiwoman vitriol
deep-seated hatred of her own gender
Don't you find that a little hyperbolic?
Does the constant barrage feminism directs at men not resonate with you in any way? This sort of thing is standard fare for men. Why don't you just get over it jeanna? Be a m... an adult.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:36 am
I don't like being made to guess when someone is mad at me or for what reason, and that is one thing I will admit that I see women do more than men. And it is wrong. Guys can't read minds; I can't either. Females (I'm generalizing) don't think about sex as much as men, and I hate to say it, but I really do forget sometimes. And a month or more can go by before I think about being wifely. I will think about it from time to time, but I think that perhaps men really truly do need & want it more than females (generalizing again), so it is much less important to us. So while it may cross our minds, we don't act on it and should. You are right that women have to work at relationships just as hard as men. I don't mean to relieve us of any responsibility. I just think that sometimes we need to be reminded. And it doesn't hurt to ask/mention/bring up the fact that you want sex.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:39 am
jeana,
nice contribution, thanks
b
btw is your name said gina?
March 18th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I'm not sure I put down men at all in any of my posts, so I don't know what you want me to get over. I am disgusted by Dr. Laura and yes, I am offended at the comments she has made and continues to make. I didn't read Kate H.'s piece but I do think she hates women based on what I read about her and what I hear her saying. Maybe it is because I am a non-religious liberal person that I can't stomach the misogynist rhetoric I hear from her. The feminists I read don't actually attack men in general; they attack our society and institutions and laws that harm women.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Bernie, I don't know what your're asking. If it's my name, it is actually Jean. A is my last initial. I'm not clever when it comes to making up pen names.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Oh, I thought it was a unique way of spelling the pronunciation of gina . . .
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:50 am
I liked it
b
March 18th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Well, Bernie, I'll keep it then. Maybe I'll come back to this website in the future, although sometimes I want to throttle some of the posters (although I won't because I'm a pacifist). Bye!
March 18th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Later, come back soon, we need your reasonable perspectives.
b
March 18th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I agree with Lester when he said,
"IMHO one hooker is worth a dozen Ph.D. social workers in Gross Domestic Happiness! They should be legal, respected.."
Although I don't know what "Gross Domestic Happiness" is - is that Dr. Laura's show?
Colleen, that's an oxymoron of sorts. If a man had $500 in his wallet, he must not have paid for sex yet - he has to buy it because his wife's holding out on him to try and manipulate him.
As an aside, after I allowed myself to be manipulated a few times by withholding of sex, I eventually decided that when it happened in the future, I would pretend it didn't bother me (that the girlfriend wouldn't have sex), and act non-chalant. I have a pretty good poker face, and it's not like by my mid 30's I couldn't keep it in my pocket. So that's what I did..and I discovered that if there's one thing a woman can't stand, it's when she knows that she won't be able to manipulate a guy as intended. It really pisses some of them off!
March 18th, 2008 at 6:11 am
slwerner Says:
PolishKnight - "Are these "I'm sorry I cheated on you" flowers or "Please don't cheat on me" flowers? :-)"
"While I understand where your question is coming from, they're really just "I love to make you smile and see you happy" flowers. Actually, I do this with some frequency. She often buys me gifts as well.
I believe that one OUGHT TO wish to make their spouse, the love of their life, happy. Life too easily becomes bogged down in routine. Small tokens, like flowers (or cards, if flowers aren't in the budget, as when we were first married 23 years ago) are a surprisingly effect means of interjecting a little spice in to break up monotony – not to mention just how well a woman will respond when you've taken the time to warm up her engine before going for a drive – if you get my drift.
As far as that other advice, men typically don’t need their engines warmed up near so much as do women. There’s a lot of truth in the comparison of women (from a sexuality perspective) to diesel engines. Get them properly warmed up, and they’ll just keep running and running. Even when sex is a pretty much daily thing, a couple can still get that “wow” factor of deep, passionate love making just by taking the little bit a of time required to set the stage properly.
I don’t pretend to know what drives men like Spitzer into such high-risk behaviors, nor why 40 to 60 percent of women (depending on which stats you read) will cheat on their husbands. I only speak for myself, and to a degree, for my wife. Much as Dr. Laura now advises, my wife hasn’t neglected my “physical needs”, and, just like Dr. Laura suggests will be the outcome, I don’t feel any compulsion to cheat on her. I can also tell you that when after I’ve done my preparations (as mentioned above), my wife’s attentiveness to me “kicks up a notch” – for days.
I know that this particular forum is probably a poor choice to bring up such things, since so many here have not been so fortunate with the opposite sex. And, I’m fully aware that what works in one case does not work in many others. "
===
As a woman, I have to say that I agree with your comments stated above, slwerner. "Setting the stage" is pretty much a necessity in the long run... and I like the way you described it as I feel you hit the nail on the head.
OnlyMyOpinion333
===
March 18th, 2008 at 6:15 am
jeana Says:
"Who wouldn't be happy with $500 in their wallet? I'm not sure what that has to do with male/female relationships, but ok. I'd be thrilled with $400. Or $300.
It sounds like the males on this conservative website have unhappy relationships with women. This appears to be a pseudo counseling site to air your grievances about my sex. So I will try to help. If she is actually withholding it from you for some malevolent reason, then I don't know what to tell you. But there most likely is another reason. One, she may be tired (I know many men are always ready and willing to go, but women are not necessarily that way. If you're tired, you won't want to have sex; it will seem like a chore.)
Two, you may have been a jerk to her or mean or rude and irritated her. And yes, we do remember that and it sours our amorous feelings.
Talk to her. That is the best way to get some loving. Tell her you miss her and want to be with her. Make a date for sex. Anger and bitterness will get you nowhere and will eat you up inside. Everyone deserves to be satisfied."
===
Ditto, JeanA.
As a woman, I agree with your comments above 100%.
OnlyMyOpinion333
March 18th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Tim Murray -"marriage is a two-way street, something the radical feminists raraly will acknowledge".......agreed on both fronts!
Mike Hunter -"Ladies it's simple, his physical needs are just as valid as your emotional needs". .....agreed!
Women may want their egos stroked (so do men, although it may not be their first priority, but try not to blame us for the biology we did not create. Men may want their ***** stroked (women might want and need their physical stroking, too and they may have a specific preference that you as a partner should be familiar with. Knowing and distinguishing between needs and wants is pretty important (wants can be delayed, but needs cannot be ignored without serious negative consequences). Knowing (and acting on them as much as possible) the difference between your partners needs and wants can be the difference between a happy marriage and an unhappy one (or simply yet another divorce).
Women can please their man sexually even when they are tired (they could just use their hand or other body part....many parts, with a little gel or cream, can be rubbed together to please a partner, not just the most obvious ones....a little imagination can go a long way..... if they consider that a valid need on the part of their men (and if their men are willing to settle for something less than the full enchilada, most men would be happy if they had the option).
We do not have to put the other person's needs ahead of our own as much as we need to keep them in mind and figure out a mutually agreeable way to help relieve the stresses of modern fast paced life together with our partners. what works for me wont necessarily work for you (but not trying to find a solution for you, two, will leave you not as happy as you might otherwise be).
Tim Murray -"marriage is a two-way street, something the radical feminists rarely will acknowledge".......agreed on both fronts...
When the men on this forum complain of feminists, they are usually referring to the feminists who are not simply concerned with the plight of women, but those who actively and happily ignore the plight of men (many men rights activists are former and/or present feminist activists, we just dare be concerned about men's rights, too)
Romance is a two way street (KISS - Keep It Simple Silly).
Too many women seem to think that romance is only the man's job. And men's rights activists are very concerned about why so many women seem to think that romance is his job, not their job jointly (and we dare to talk about it even if it means we will be labeled sexist or conservative or religious)......interestingly, not all of us here are conservative, though some are and not all of us are religious (though some dare to be in this supposedly free country).
Some men do NOT maintain their part of the romance bargain can get into their own set of problems as discussed above.
Forgiveness is in pretty short supply nowadays (maybe it always has been), especially among many feminists and masculists (not everything can or should be forgiven and certainly not everyone and not every situation is the same, so judgment should be reserved for those who know all the facts, and I am not sure anyone knows all the facts.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Christina-"the wife wasn't neglecting her husband. nor was the husband neglecting the wife. this was their thing and it was the easiest target to use to out them and create a media storm before they could work for some good in the world."
This seems like conjecture (nothing wrong with that although some might like to see it declared as such).
On the other hand (my own conjecture added to yours), It could be that Spitzer got outed for being hypocritical about that which he attacked so much and so hypocritically (since that is how he became so powerful to begin with), familiarity, intimacy, & SEX for money-the first two are legal, not necessarily moral). Not everything is about abortion (oops, sorry to say the emperor has no clothes, but that is one reason the democrats so often do so poorly, they have practically only one issue, abortion....the only other issues democrats seem to have is women's rights, to the exclusion of concern for men's rights)......The dems would be totally out of it except that many republicans are as eager to ignore the rights of men as democrats (and men are very eager to prove their feminist leanings lest they be branded a woman hater, even to the extent that they totally ignore the plight of their gender-oops, sorry, I dared to suggest that their was more than one gender.
He’s a puritanical demublican (much like a puritanical republicrat, same thing) which means he is most unhappy when other people are having fun. These are our puritanical roots and few are as puritanical as a radical feminist. We are all upset when someone else is having fun (like the one smoking cannabis-its barely dangerous (and was used for centuries as medicine, but I think they might be laughing at me or having too much fun, so it ought to be illegal). See how well prohibition worked (it enabled the mob to infiltrate all of our cities and see how useful the war on drugs is, it has enabled (via drug selling finacnce) gangs to infiltrate all of our cities and rural areas).
PolishKnight-“I don't think the guy needed a sleazy hooker.”
I believe she was a high paid hooker, not a sleazy one. Just cuz the press cannot differentiate between a high paid one and a low paid one doesn’t mean we are so naïve. How could the press claim she was homeless when she earned as much as she did (certainly she did not get all the money that he paid, but the press made it seem like she was among the lowest paid prostitutes out there which she certainly wasn’t. The press repeatedly suggested that she was homeless (what a joke). She may have been homeless at some point in her life, but so have most Americans at some point in life been homeless (almost every man who has ever gotten divorced has been homeless for some period of time, not that the press would ever be concerned about the plight of men).
If we had more forgiveness, we might have less divorce (to err is human, to forgive….)
To rush to judgment is easy and fun, to forgive is not so easy…….I am proud of those who find it in their heart to forgive…..Of course do not forget the rule, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Forgiveness can be a risk that we may decide to take, but if that forgiveness is repeatedly taken advantage of, then moving on is likely the best course.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
****************************************************************************************************************************
##########################################################################################
I think you all need to take Dr. Laura's comments from the Today Show and understand that only those who watched it for the first time, live, while it aired, with an open ear, are the only ones who can account for what really happened. I joned Dr. Laura's website months before this occurred, so it's just timely I was able to see her in action. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Laura said herself in her blog that she was blindsided after being asked a general question about cheating husbands. The blindsided attack was the point where the panel discussion (of the three guests including ) was ONLY THEN asked to talk about the Spitzers. Dr. Laura DID NOT try to point at Silda AT ALL. I saw it while it aired, and I "got it" and the only people who didn't are the ones who tried beforehand to blame men on everything they do anyway. Separate issue from the Spitzers, again. So, please stop blaming Dr. Laura for saying it was Silda's fault. She was not saying that and even expressed emphatically in the LIVE airing that she was not referring to the Spitzer's and instead was referring to, in general, BUT ESPECIALLY when it does NOT have anything to do with spending $80,000 on a prostitution ring and multiple times of cheating. Do not bully her. Liken this whole "she said...he said" thing to people hearing about something 2nd or third-hand and who were not "there." Many factors are playing in this:
1. Dr. Laura was answering a question that was general --- SO, if you were paying attention, then up until then there was no mention AT ALL of the Spitzers.
2. Blindsided after answring that general question regarding cheating husbands, Dr. Laura was then pounced on also by a typical naysayer of male-bashers. (I'm female, by the way).
3. Suddenly, post-show, rage occurred with people who typically bash males. And their victim: Dr, Laura. All she could do was write her supporters via a mass email saying exactly what I said in my #1 on this list.
4. Dr. Laura is a wonderful person who "gets it". The people who are upset, are the ones who did not see the airing Live; WHO did NOT watch it with a LESS-CRITiCAL EYE until AFTER all the hoopla in the media who try to stir things up anyway PEOPLE; and who did not see it but were only "told" by friends and watched previously viewed SOUND BYTES of media naysayers.
5. BOTTOM LINE: Dr. Laura was not directing her comment about it being women's fault that men cheat to Silda. She was answering questions that had not involved the Spitzers name in it yet. It was only AFTER her answer, did Meredith Viera THEN twist the question to include the Spitzers, and therefore blindsided Dr. Laur, and creating this large controversy. It was a runaway train after that, and it wasn't fair to Dr. Laura.
6. Lastly, she doesn't believe women are inherently dumb or naive to see their men need attention. She's saying that oftentimes, due to statistics, and even if you do your own field research everyone, women don't take enough time to truly understand and COMMUNICATE in a productive, kind, non-demanding way to find out (during the dating stages) what makes her spouse/partner truly happy. If you don't try thinking you need to read between the lines, you see point blank what this means. It means that women automatically complain unintentionally about things that are emotionally charged, and men are then misunderstood because the calm partner by their side suddenly gets irritated and shows it with passion. Men are emotional people too, but they thrive on facts before emotion ONLY if it doesn't have to do with people, especially loved ones. Otherwise, they thrive on working well at work, thriving as a Father, Thriving as a Husband, and Thriving as a REAL PERSON. Dr. Laura was only trying to HIGHLIGHT that men are human who need POSITIVE attention, and if he ignores it, as Ex-Gov. Spitzer had, then HE IS AT FAULT, NOT THE WOMAN. Dr. Laura was trying to find EQUAL FOOTING FOR MEN AND WOMEN AND INSTEAD WAS BERATED BY NAYSAYERS WHO DIDN'T AGREE THAT MEN ARE NOT ALWAYS AT FAULT BEFORE THE SHOW EVEN WAS PRODUCED AND AIRED. Read that over again if you think I am now supporting what Gov. Spat-on-her did! It should not take $80,000.00 to show anyone someone isn't happy with himself and that his wife should leave him, so no one should demean Dr. Laura's intellect knowing that well. Blindsided she was, Woman-basher she's not, EQUAL PARTNERSHIP she is. :)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
March 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
In order for these debates to ever get solved...well to even stand a chance I think there needs to be a final determination of the age old argument of... "Because I wasn't getting sex..." and this argument falls into mostly two groups...
#1. Just because you were not getting sex doesn't justify anything.
#2. Not having sex is like not having air to breath.
If people can understand that for men...well...enough of them...and for many women too...not having sex is an incomplete life and many will risk every other aspect of their lives in order to obtain sex and complete their lives.
If you reject the above as a possibility than the argument will always continue. Many people don't want this to be true especially if you do not need sex to complete you and you are with someone who does...add to that, if you are no longer considered desirable by your mate or to the mating pool, you will also have a serious problem with this. It can objectify your worth and any on the short end of the stick will want to crucify those who are in group 2.
But too bad so sad...group #2 is real...and vast...lol...real vast...exceedingly vast... almost unanimous. Those who need sex and are not cheating or getting it...well that is due to lack of opportunity. But rest assured...they are not complete with it and when along cums Molly... finish the rest.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Oh no ...
Cheryl A.
Another empirically inclined female poster.
She actually wants to deal with facts and evidence!
I am going to be very anxious 24 x 7 if these types of women keep showing up.
Tough little neighborhood with tough girls on every corner!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Thank you, Glenn. Saying women make a great number of their own problems is not the same thing as saying you hate women. I get this all the time. If you're a woman and not toeing the feminist "party line", you're automatically either a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, doing it because it's the only way you can get attention from men, you hate your own sex (I purposely didn't use the word "gender"), or some combination of the three.
Saying women don't cause any of their own problems is worse than saying we're like children. Even children are expected to take responsibility for their own choices. Saying we're not responsible for any of our own choices (i.e. "blaming the victim") is like saying we're not capable of the most basic of thought processes.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Hillary Clinton says that Heather Mills is "one of the woman that have really made a difference in the world."
Heather Mills posted this video on Youtube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlFsVi5zuhc
March 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Sometimes people pay big bucks for sleazy. Consider the Atlantic City Taj Mahal!
I had said: “I don't think the guy needed a sleazy hooker.”
Akhi responded: "I believe she was a high paid hooker, not a sleazy one."
PK writes: from dictionary.com, "sleazy":
1. contemptibly low, mean, or disreputable: sleazy politics.
2. squalid; sordid; filthy; dilapidated: a sleazy hotel.
3. thin or poor in texture, as a fabric; cheap; flimsy: a sleazy dress; a sleazy excuse.
I checked out the woman's myspace photos and bio and I stand by what I said: She seems "sleazy" or disreputable. I'm not talking about her profession but rather her overall demeanor. She appeared low class. There are high paid hookers who can (and often are) escorts that can attend high profile gatherings but this woman wouldn't have been able to pull it off.
I made that point for a reason because, this particular woman, at least, didn't fit the profile of the many high class women that Spitzer would have encountered in his natural daily life. One of the most important tenets of feminist dogma is that as career women gain status and power, that alpha males they crave will find that attractive about them.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Welcome to the cooty club, KellyMac!
KellyMac joins the cooty club (and we're honored to have her): "Thank you, Glenn. Saying women make a great number of their own problems is not the same thing as saying you hate women. I get this all the time. If you're a woman and not toeing the feminist "party line", you're automatically either a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, doing it because it's the only way you can get attention from men, you hate your own sex (I purposely didn't use the word "gender"), or some combination of the three.
Saying women don't cause any of their own problems is worse than saying we're like children. Even children are expected to take responsibility for their own choices. Saying we're not responsible for any of our own choices (i.e. "blaming the victim") is like saying we're not capable of the most basic of thought processes."
PK: Hello Kelly. I like the snipe that you supposedly are seeking "attention" from men. Human beings seek attention from each other and there's different kinds of attention. If a woman is not getting attention from treating men with kindness, then she's getting it for other reasons (if you know what I mean.) These kinds of women usually are constantly fretting about how men have "just one thing" on their mind. I respond to them: "What else are you offering them?"
Sadly, it's not only women in our society who act like children. I know many men who are love with the idea of a big socialist government that will go around and beat up kids for their lunch money (the "rich", etc.) and then take care of and protect them. Bleah! It's kind of funny to watch when a childish, infantile woman is picked up by a childish, infantile man. Oh, wait, it's not. That's what Montel Williams and Jenny Jones built their careers on.
"Adult" women generally tend to prefer other adults including adult men and women. It gets tiring quickly dealing with people who don't return your phone calls, keep appointments, or pick up the check.
The notion of women being "oppressed" by men (stockholm syndrome) is largely a feminist construct on college campuses or governmental offices. Once these women graduate and go into The Real World, they suddenly discover that the world doesn't owe them a living. In our circle of friends we had someone like this and she was devestated when she discovered her English Literature degree wasn't a guarantee of big money at a publishing house. Unfortunately, one of her college sweethearts came to her (and her ideologies') rescue. *sigh*.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Marriage should be a 2-way street of love, compromise, respect & forgiveness. Whatever is or isn't going on in the Spitzers' marriage is their business, period. Marriages break down for various reason (which are numerous as the people in them). One thing is certain: the only person you can control in a marriage is yourself;when people grasp that fact, they will be happier mentally and emotionally. It's interesting to note that however "sophisticated" and "forward-thinking" we as a society think we are, human nature never changes. There has been and will be faithful and unfaithful spouses. Another fact is sure : people will only do what you allow them to do. Ignoring problems in marriage won't make them go away.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I have heard Dr. Laura's remarks and had these thoughts. She ultimately insults men. She paints them as sub-creatures who have to have strokes and pampering in order to keep their sexual impulses from being expressed outside the marriage. She sees them as just too weak, too much the unthinking pawns of a sexual determinism to be able to withstand the hard times that come to every marriage. I do not believe men to be such pawns. If they act that way, thank Dr. Laura and her ilk.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ann - "She sees them as just too weak, too much the unthinking pawns of a sexual determinism to be able to withstand the hard times that come to every marriage. I do not believe men to be such pawns."
Gee, Ann,
We are all in some ways what you term pawns – both men and women. We are human, we have human weaknesses, we all like to be given love and attention. This is not a bad, nor sub-human thing. Yes, men like sex, and would like to have their wives join them in that (you’ll notice I don’t use the language of wives dutifully gratify men, but rather of them being engaged as lovers). Women like, dare I say crave, attention and reassurances from their men. Without a long involved discussion of evolutionary reasons as to why this is, I do believe that level-head, normal thinking people can easily recognize that it is what it is.
Meeting the needs and desires of our loved ones (especially our spouses) is something that I truly believe we ought to seek to do out of our love for them, not because we think less of them for having such needs. When both parties are thus involved, the reciprocation creates a positive feed-back loop.
Feminism seems to be fundamentally opposed to women participating in such a loving arrangement – as it is some oppression of “normal” practices of women. It’s as if women are being told that if they wish to be nice to their men, they’ve been brainwashed. And, if men are treated well by women, it’s because they are sub-human.
Are women no longer capable of love? Are they no longer able to do things for others out of love? What happened to women, Ann?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
ann, I agree that often Dr. Laura's tone is insulting, however the underlying message is very much on target: men and women BOTH have needs of equal importance in a relationship and if one partner feels dissatisfied in terms of these needs, then it is not hard to imagine that infidelity and the like will occur. Just consider: often if a woman is unfaithful, society will almost always wonder what the man did wrong to push her away...similarly, if a man is unfaithful, everyone will wonder how he can victimize his poor wife.
I find that feminists will often use your argument as a means to silence debate. You are effectively saying that men should just "man-up" and control themselves and to suggest otherwise is a show of weakness on the part of men. In some circles, making such a statement will shutdown discussion as neither men nor women want to think of men as weak, and both men and women feel that men should "man-up" when it comes to how they deal with their lives. Thankfully, this blog isn't that type of circle.
The fact is, men are just as needy as women. Their needs may take on different forms, but for a relationship to be successful the needs of both partners must be treated with equal respect. We as a culture - both men and women - are socialized to treat female needs with greater respect then male needs. This point of view is not compatible with the ideal of a relationship of equal partners.
Incidentally, as a qualifying statement, it is far to simplistic for me to suggest that "all men want X" and "all women want Y." I know plenty of women who think about sex all the time, and I know plenty of men who would just prefer to do something quiet at home not involving the bedroom (or the kitchen counter or the jacuzzi or the....).
March 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The Tramp will try to be nice to the Lady
Jeana writes: "It sounds like the males on this conservative website have unhappy relationships with women. This appears to be a pseudo counseling site to air your grievances about my sex."
PK observes and advises: Jeana, if you really want to create a hostile discussion, that's a pretty good way to start. You categorize the men negatively and then make it appear to be their fault. You do this several times later as well. You are aware that a marriage has _two_ people, yes?
Jeana continues: "So I will try to help. If she is actually withholding it from you for some malevolent reason, then I don't know what to tell you."
PK observes: You actually did claim a few sentences later that she might be withholding because we might be acting like "jerks." Once again, this is hardly winning you friends or opening minds when you're blaming the men.
Jeana writes: "But there most likely is another reason. One, she may be tired (I know many men are always ready and willing to go, but women are not necessarily that way."
PK shares: Jeana, are you really married? Oftentimes men are tired (look at the cartoon Glenn just put up) and don't want sex but just to watch TV. It's often women that complain that they dress up and get all sexy only to have the man want to watch a ball game (pardon the pun.)
Jeana writes: "If you're tired, you won't want to have sex; it will seem like a chore.)"
PK shares: Ironically, this is MORE true of men than women which is why you really shouldn't be giving US advice about marriage! For men, if we're really tired we can't get an erection. That kills it right there. But women are always "ready" even if they're not necessarily in the perfect mood.
And so what if it's a "chore?" Did you think marriage was about doing things only when they're fun for both people? Sometimes, I don't want to do something my wife wants to do but I do it anyway because I care about her. In your case, when women don't care about something, then it's not an issue. That's what "feminism" is: A world that is concerned only with the needs and cares of women.
Jeana writes: "Two, you may have been a jerk to her or mean or rude and irritated her. "
PK responds: So that's marriage? A tit-for-tat relationship where people hold grudges and punish each other? This may surprise you to hear, toots, but sometimes you ladies aren't perfect either (yes, really) and us men GET OVER IT.
Jeana pouts: "And yes, we do remember that and it sours our amorous feelings."
PK: 'nuff said.
Jeana continues: "Three, she may forget (my husband has to remind me sometimes, like, "You know, it's BEEN A MONTH!!" Sometimes time flies and you don't even know it). "
PK: I want to be snippy here but I've had this happen too. But... it's not just the man's responsibility. My wife and I make it a point to treat each other sometimes and rekindle romance.
Jeana advices: "Talk to her. That is the best way to get some loving. Tell her you miss her and want to be with her. Make a date for sex."
PK translates: "Bark like a seal! Beg for treats! Good dog!" Really, Jeana, while it's a good idea to be nice to one's spouse she is, nonetheless, his spouse.
Jeana concludes: "Anger and bitterness will get you nowhere and will eat you up inside. Everyone deserves to be satisfied."
PK ALSO concludes: Er, didn't you just say, Jeana, that she might be withholding sex due to some "sour" grudge? You think that should get her somewhere, yes? Feminism literally means thinking the world revolves around feminine interests. When you say "everyone", you mean women. If "everyone" "deserves" to be satisfied, why are you saying men have to do a dance to get it?
You started out giving us advice about our miserable relationships but, in reality, I'm a lot happier with my marriage than I would be if I followed your advice. I wouldn't want to be a lifetime sexual beggar like so many men in this culture and neither do I think my wife would want such a man either. Tell you what, if you and your husband are happy with your arrangement, great. I'm honestly happy for you. Fair enough?
March 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
So what if it's a "chore?" Did you think marriage was about doing things only when they're fun for both people? Sometimes, I don't want to do something my wife wants to do but I do it anyway because I care about her. In your case, when women don't care about something, then it's not an issue.
Exactly
March 18th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Slwerner and Lance. Please let me clarify. I recognize the need for love and attention on all our parts. But as you say, we are all human. Human also includes not being always and everywhere affectionate and giving. Sickness, distractions of every types are the human condition. If either a man or a woman are not properly attentive, it should not give the other the excuse for infidelity. I do believe that the promise of fidelity in marriage is one that can be kept, even under extrememely stressful situations. To point the finger at the other is just childish and immature.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Jeana: "The feminists I read don't actually attack men in general; they attack our society and institutions and laws that harm women."
Hence why feminism is non-egalitarian. There is no considerations of how society and institutions and laws harm men. The focus on women-first (as is pervasive in this culture and in feminism) hurts men. Once feminists realize that the needs of men are just as important as the needs of women, they will become far more egalitarian. Until that day, they are bigots - pure and simple..
In terms of your position that feminists "don't attack men in general" I would suggest you haven't read many feminists (or you refuse to see things from a male perspective). The two pillars of feminism drip with bigotry:
The feminist fixation on a so-called patriarchy is offensive as the word "patriarchy" - an inherently male term - implies that only men are the reason for negative gender roles or stereotypes. Instead, a gender-neutral term for society's focus on gender roles should be adopted. Women are just as much to blame for negative gender roles and stereotypes as men.
The feminist fixation on so-called male privilege without an equal consideration female privilege. Again, this vilifies all men as being part of a privileged class when in reality, everyone - male or female - profits from the privileges of their gender. The only way men and women will become equal is for the the privileges of both genders to be recognized and dealt with in equal measure. Feminism has become institutionalized chivalry where the needs of women are taught to be paramount to the needs of men.
Finally, any movement that defines sexism in such a sexist manner is non-egalitarian:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/
March 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Lance says in reply to Ann: "I find that feminists will often use your argument as a means to silence debate. You are effectively saying that men should just "man-up" and control themselves and to suggest otherwise is a show of weakness on the part of men. In some circles, making such a statement will shutdown discussion as neither men nor women want to think of men as weak, and both men and women feel that men should "man-up" when it comes to how they deal with their lives. Thankfully, this blog isn't that type of circle."
PK observes: I don't know if Ann is saying all that. I think (maybe) she is saying that we shouldn't absolve people of responsibility for their actions or treat them like helpless children and applies this to women as well.
Lance continues: "The fact is, men are just as needy as women. Their needs may take on different forms, but for a relationship to be successful the needs of both partners must be treated with equal respect. We as a culture - both men and women - are socialized to treat female needs with greater respect then male needs. This point of view is not compatible with the ideal of a relationship of equal partners."
PK philosophizes: If men didn't have "needs", especially sexual needs, most wouldn't marry because the risk is so huge. I was just passing by a checkout counter at Safeway and the Cosmo and other women's magazines were screaming tips for women to pleasure men sexually. Marriage is about "needs". You know, in sickness and in health? For richer for poorer?
Marriage is now viewed by middle class libertines (feminists and playboy men) as something fun to do or a rite of passage. On the other hand, many in the working classes view marriage as an unaffordable luxury with women unable to find traditional breadwinners and working class men terrified they can't live up to them.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I am very grateful for Dr. Laura's comments on this issue. There are many women out there being unfair to their husbands in sexual matters. They expect (demand?) him to be responsive to their non-sexual needs but are extremely callus to his sexual needs. Most of the men I know are unhappy with how their wife treats them in the bedroom. Women are just as guilty of wrecking marriages as men are and one of the chief ways they do this is by unnecessarily denying him sex.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hey, it's all my fault. Really.
Jeana: "The feminists I read don't actually attack men in general; they attack our society and institutions and laws that harm women."
Others have addressed this but I want to put in my two cents too. It's just such a provocative statement!
Feminists often do go out of their way to not name men specifically, but they clearly blame men through a process of elimination.
Let's say you have two children. A boy and a girl. A parent comes into the room and finds the vase broken. The girl argues that she's a victim and doesn't break vases and it's wrong to even accuse her. Guess whose going to get blamed for breaking the vase using that argument?
Feminism proclaims women are victims and in constant need of handouts and entitlements. Well, those entitlements have to come from somewhere. Since the only other gender is men, then it's men being discriminated against to "make up for" the harms that have befallen women.
Even this shallow ruse is exposed the micro-second a man dares to challenge a feminist directly on this paradigm. The moment he suggests that women don't deserve special "equal" privileges she'll shriek: "That's because YOU'RE a MAN and YOU benefitted from all the oppression of women! It's MEN like you who did this!!!"
I then usually start laughing because typically these women come from upper income families and drive Beamers and go to expensive schools paid for, again, by their oppressive fathers. Fiddle dee dee! I point out to them that I came from a working class family and have been working since the age of 14 to which they'll reply: "Oh, you're not an alpha male? You don't matter then! I thought you were some rich guy who could pay all the bills!"
Feminism is such a contradiction of false victimhood of sexism and pseudo-equality combined with attempts to cling to the entitlements of both that it's sometimes hard to take it seriously. Outside of politics and the courtroom, it doesn't really exist. Most women don't even want to use the label out of terror some man might call her on it and make her pay her way. Hell, feminism is a product of chivalry. Of white men bending over backwards to protect women so they'll feel like "equals". This doesn't exist in most other cultures and thanks to GW Bush and the world resenting our presence in Iraq, Imperialism forcing such values on other countries is now largely over.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
ann: "Sickness, distractions of every types are the human condition. "
There is a big difference between being with someone how cares about your needs consistently but then does not for a period (however long that period my be) due to something beyond their control such as being sick or whatever. Each person has a different perspective on an acceptable period length, but everyone has their limits. If a man were not caring for your needs, would you stay with him for very long? If he would never show you affection or give you support, would your eye wander a bit? Would you consider being unfaithful? One never knows for sure unless they are presented with real life pressures. What would be the lever you need?
ann: "If either a man or a woman are not properly attentive, it should not give the other the excuse for infidelity."
Excuse is not the proper term. There is no "excuse" for infidelity (well except in the case of an open or swinger relationship - but let's not muddy the water). That said, there can be reason for being unfaithful. It is unfair to only look at the unfaithful partner as the only villain in a relationship. To the person whose needs are not being met, the person who is refusing to meet those needs is being just as unfaithful. Unfortunately, we as a society spend far too much time focused on the end and not on the journey to that end. It seems that Dr. Laura is saying is keep your eye on the ball...that, as they say, life is a journey...and realize that you are not powerless. A relationship between partners is supposed to be a constant work-in-progress with both partners sometimes doing things they don't want to do in order to satisfy the needs of the other. To expect one gender to be "stronger" then the other is unfair and impossible.
ann: "I do believe that the promise of fidelity in marriage is one that can be kept, even under extrememely stressful situations."
I agree...but I would also posit that it is much easier to work through those "extremely stressful situations" when the partners in a relationship feel that they are working together to address them. Too often this is just not the case.
ann: "To point the finger at the other is just childish and immature"
Huh? Where did this come from? Again, no need to throw in little buzz-word statements here that are supposed to shutdown debate. No one is being "childish and immature" by saying that life is a lot more complicated then "cheater=villain; non-cheater=victim". When you enter into a real-life adult partnership, both people are culpable in everything that happens in that relationship. To simply throw up your hands and say "it's his fault" is what's childish and immature. Not only is that unfair to him, but perhaps more importantly, it's unfair to you because next time - with perhaps the next guy - you will make the same mistakes as you did before. These mistakes could include your choice in men (with a sex-drive that is unsynchronized with your own for example), or it could be that you will continue to belittle your new-man's needs while demanding the fulfillment of your own.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
PK: "PK observes: I don't know if Ann is saying all that. I think (maybe) she is saying that we shouldn't absolve people of responsibility for their actions or treat them like helpless children and applies this to women as well."
No...in my (perhaps flawed?) interpretation, she is suggesting that we should absolve the non-cheater of his or her responsibility in the failure of their marriage. No one here (myself include) is suggesting that the cheater be absolved of his or her responsibility, but many of us (myself included) do not feel that real-life is so cut and dry that "cheater=villain; non-cheater=victim". In terms of ann's tone sounding similar to feminist tactics for shutting down debate, I stand by my sentiment here.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
why do the feminists rarely make a comment about the girl in the middle of this scandal? I think the hooker is the ultimate feminist, realizing that her play on a man`s weakness can really ruin him. I`m sure she didn`t ask Eliot, `are you sure you want to do this, it has repercussions...?` Go ahead Adam, eat the forbidden fruit... They`re both, guilty, either hang em or forgive them both. dont ruin one, and give the other a record and a playboy deal!!
March 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
PK: "Let's say you have two children. A boy and a girl. A parent comes into the room and finds the vase broken. The girl argues that she's a victim and doesn't break vases and it's wrong to even accuse her. Guess whose going to get blamed for breaking the vase using that argument?"
Excellent analogy.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Lance writes: "No...in my (perhaps flawed?) interpretation, she is suggesting that we should absolve the non-cheater of his or her responsibility in the failure of their marriage. No one here (myself include) is suggesting that the cheater be absolved of his or her responsibility, but many of us (myself included) do not feel that real-life is so cut and dry that "cheater=villain; non-cheater=victim". In terms of ann's tone sounding similar to feminist tactics for shutting down debate, I stand by my sentiment here."
My interpretation is perhaps flawed as well. In addition, I might have missed her previous comments (trying to do a search for Ann in Microsoft Exploder actually causes it to crash.)
I find the simplistic villian/victim dichotomy also questionable as you do. Extreme broad generalizations invite challenge. I generally agree with Ann but I find her scope questionable. That's all. She needs to back it up.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Blaming the other guy in the room and the philosophy of Barak Hussein Obama
PK: "Let's say you have two children. A boy and a girl. A parent comes into the room and finds the vase broken. The girl argues that she's a victim and doesn't break vases and it's wrong to even accuse her. Guess whose going to get blamed for breaking the vase using that argument?"
Lance responds: Excellent analogy.
PK: Thanks. I literally got that coming from a family where if someone didn't take responsibility or shifted it away, it often fell on someone else. This is also how socialism works and there's a great essay on Imprimus on "The Forgotten Man" (Or basically, the "Man behind the Tree") http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=09
Did you just read Obama's speech? http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm
He's basically pulling the same trick engaging in nice sounding race and gender hustling portraying women and minorities as holy, entitled victims of discrimination but then, get this, when he talks about white men losing jobs he blames the evil corporations therefore giving the men no specific claim of victimhood (since women and minorities are also claimants in that situation.) What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too!
The great uniter. Pfhooy!
I see all kinds of ways he's trying to sidestep things and hurl mean little bombs while claiming he doesn't want to be "divisive." _EVERYONE_ who disagrees with him is divisive. Oh, that's sounds pretty simple. Why didn't anyone think of that before?
March 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Glenn,
You are correct. I'm appalled at the lack of decency these feminists have when it comes to issues of marriage. Women often give excuses for infidelity on major talk shows like Oprah, write books as to why they do it; women conveniently blame men in the relationship. On the contrary, many women hold sex as a bargaining chip, become too controlling, naggy and demanding and as a result men find sex elsewhere. But, most men are portrayed as cowards, dogs and losers when they get caught while women are portrayed as the victims. I am tired that if a man demands respect and love it’s shown as a sign of control and not human while bossy women are portrayed as independent. Women cheat in equal numbers and they still blame the man. I believe for too long men have been portrayed as the wrong doers and it's time to express how we feel. We shouldn't be concerned about the Feminist rants as they show how sexist they are.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I think there is a lot more evidence that he is a hypocrit than a "cheater". I could care less about prostitution but this fella made a name and living fighting that demon. A democrat version of Craig I guess. Maybe akin to the most agressive (on crime) cops being the ones to go bad. Maybe it has something to do with the close and constant exposure to something, who knows. I think it is mostly out there because we as a society LOVE to talk about sex. If there is a way to twist it into a soap opera we like it even more.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
On the contrary, many women hold sex as a bargaining chip, become too controlling, naggy and demanding and as a result men find sex elsewhere.
I frequent relationship message boards. One of the common reoccurring themes is "why has my BF/husband turned to porn and ignore sex with me?"
After a few questions to said women, the answer often becomes evident: He got tired of jumping thru your hoops to get laid and took matters into his own hand.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
In defense of Larry Craig
Ed says: "A democrat version of Craig I guess."
The logic goes apparently that Republicans are, by definition, all conservative family values type guys who support the full perceived religious right agenda of legislating morality and busting on gays. (Note: I'm not saying that this is the religious right or Republican agenda, just that this seems to be the perception.)
All that said, what evidence is there that Larry Craig was a gay basher? Or that he sought to have people resign office over misdemeanor flirting in bathrooms?
I think he got set up. Read the transcript for yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/craig.transcript/index.html
For example, the cop claims it's suspicious that Craig's foot touched his BUT at the same time the cop put _HIS_ foot near him. This is like someone bumping up against you and claiming you're hitting on them.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Demonspawn says: "On the contrary, many women hold sex as a bargaining chip, become too controlling, naggy and demanding and as a result men find sex elsewhere.
I frequent relationship message boards. One of the common reoccurring themes is "why has my BF/husband turned to porn and ignore sex with me?"
After a few questions to said women, the answer often becomes evident: He got tired of jumping thru your hoops to get laid and took matters into his own hand."
PK: I have to admit that I like porn just because I like porn. Lots of normal married men do. In addition, I know of men (and women) who have cheated just because they like to cheat. Sometimes, it really is one person's fault. I just disagree with saying it's _always_ one sides fault or the other.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
My father taught me two things. The first was, "When a man doesn't eat well at home, he goes out to a restaurant." The second was, "When a woman takes care of her man he will drive 100 miles just to get her a slice of pizza." The media keeps saying that Ashely Dupre brought the governor down. She did no such thing. He brought himself down. Concerning Clinton and Monica, does Hillary look like the type of woman who wants to seduce her man? Absolutely not. Clinton looked at himself as the most powerful man in the world and fell for Monica's seduction. Who can blame him?
March 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Ann here again. I am definitely not a feminist. I am, however one who believes that human nature is capable of much more than we sometimes indicate in our speech. Maybe the issue is framed by the word need for sexual desire. Desire may be the proper term, and as we all know, one does not need to answer every desire.
Further, if one believes that one is just the extinquisher of the other's needs, doesn't that make one an object instead of a loved person?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
ann: "I am definitely not a feminist."
Technically, I said that your approach to the argument is similar to that of a feminist. Whether or not you identify with feminism was not really the point (though it is good to hear that you are not!).
ann: "Maybe the issue is framed by the word need for sexual desire. Desire may be the proper term, and as we all know, one does not need to answer every desire."
That's really the crux of my argument: you are prioritizing other desires over sexual desire. That is pretty easy to do if you don't have that desire. I do not think you have the right to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't desire unless you are willing to put aside all of your desires yourself.
Instead of thinking about "desire for sex" - substitute "desire for affection" or "desire for snuggling" or "desire for support" or so on. All of these are stereotypical feminine desires. I say feminine and not female because I believe that every individual is an amalgamation of feminine and masculine traits - in varying quantities. Can you honestly substitute each of these desires in place of "sexual desire" in your statement above, and not understand why someone may feel cheated by someone withholding "sexual desire"?
Again, I'm not excusing his - or anyone else's - behavior. What I am saying is it is wrong and counter productive to fall into the trap of not seeing the reasons that lead him (or her) to their infidelity. I am also saying it is wrong to prioritize the "desire for affection", "desire for snuggling", "desire for support", or "insert your heart's desire here" above the "desire for sex". They are all desires and if you are in a real partnership, you should consider them all equally important. At the very least you should recognize that these desires, even if you don't share them, are just as important to others are yours are to you.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Ann asks philosophically: "Further, if one believes that one is just the extinquisher of the other's needs, doesn't that make one an object instead of a loved person?"
Now THAT'S quite a question Ann!
I remember a television show hypothesizing about whether cats and dogs really "loved" their owners (or are they just "using" us for food?) I personally believe the former but we can pose the same question in general for human relationships. It's natural, and even healthy, for us to "love" things that are good for us and fulfill our needs while it's considered negative to fall for someone or something that saps our energy and resources.
Your use of the word "object" harkens back to early feminist dogma using that term "sexual object." It was considered wrong for men to view women as sexual objects and therefore dehumanizing them. Men's rights activists soon countered that women treated men as "success" objects and that even flattering terms such as calling a man "self-confident, intelligent, powerful", etc. were just indirect ways of her gauging his ability to provide protection and financial support for her.
Even so, many women clearly don't worry TOO much about objectification since so many of them invest in cosmetics, clothing, etc. to become attractive to men and to get men to support them. Some feminists went for the hairy leg route and married the unemployed guitar player from freecreditreport.com.
In the long run, men's sex drives wane too (mine did at 30) and it was like the difference between driving a car stuck in 5th gear versus a more relaxed cruiser. It allowed me to enjoy relationships with women more without this throbbing need punching me in the back of the head. Also, marriage helps satiate that as men realize that if the food bowl is always full then we don't need to chomp it down at every opportunity. I think most men really do love their women, beyond sex, and care about them deeply.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Desire
Lance philosophizes: "Again, I'm not excusing his - or anyone else's - behavior. What I am saying is it is wrong and counter productive to fall into the trap of not seeing the reasons that lead him (or her) to their infidelity. I am also saying it is wrong to prioritize the "desire for affection", "desire for snuggling", "desire for support", or "insert your heart's desire here" above the "desire for sex". They are all desires and if you are in a real partnership, you should consider them all equally important. At the very least you should recognize that these desires, even if you don't share them, are just as important to others are yours are to you."
Lance, women have a stereotypical strong desire for men to give them things even moreso than men have for sex. Not just to have them (many career women can afford them) but to actually have a man do for them:
Buy dinners.
Buy diamond engagement rings.
Buy flowers.
Open doors.
Ask them out.
These are a BIG deal to most women. In fact, most men expect and understand that they can't have sex with a woman on the first date (or even the third in many cases) but nearly all women will expect their desires for a paid dinner or open doors to be satisfied IMMEDIATELY.
If you think about it, that's quite a bit of power us men have. I even went out on dates with women who treated me less than stellar and I had fun watching them squirm when the dinner check came. They did not handle it very well. Women view paying for their share of a date much like men view cleaning their apartment, shoe shopping, and going to chick flicks _put together._ They hate it.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
ann: "Further, if one believes that one is just the extinquisher of the other's needs, doesn't that make one an object instead of a loved person?"
I'm not sure that people are ever "objects" per se. People can be an object of ones desire (whether that desire is sexual or not) but is that right or wrong? I think the term "object" and "objectify" are probably thrown around more then they need to be. I desire my wife..but when does my desire become objectification? In my mind, since I desire my wife, I never see her as an object in the negative sense. If my wife does not share my desire, then she may feel objectified. So who is right and who is wrong? What about if she shares my desire? Then is my "objectification" of her ok? Or did she objectify me?? The words "objectify" and "object" seem too much like words one uses to say: my desires are more important then yours and if you have desires other then mine, then you are dirty and wrong because you are objectifying me. Seems like a suspect argument to me.
Incidentally, I would say that if one believes that one is just the extinguisher of the other's needs, then one is probably a hated person.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Gentlemen, I think you are so right to object to men being' success objects". I also think that all of us are wrestling with a very profound question "what is love"? I really think that it is wanting to meet the other's real needs as measured by some hierarchy that reduces no one to an object of lust or greed or pride or power. It is an ongoing struggle worthy of those who would be men and women in their fullest.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
(Ann wrote) --" I also think that all of us are wrestling with a very profound question "what is love?"
OK, excellent question. (I love chick philosophers ... they really are all that is left to admire in the female species...)
But go deeper....
"What is DESIRE?" (That is the root of your question, before you get to bourgeois ideas like "love.")
And BTW, several blokes in this salon are certainly not gentlemen.
Watch out for them....
March 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Ann, you had me right up until here (I'm sure you're surprised):
ann: " I really think that it is wanting to meet the other's real needs as measured by some hierarchy that reduces no one to an object of lust or greed or pride or power."
My desire to express love to my wife physically - whether she is or is not in the mood - is not lust nor is it hierarchically lower then her desire for affection. Or would you suggest that her desire for affection is gluttony?
Just as it is far too easy to throw your hands up and say "he cheated so it's all his fault", it is likewise far too easy to say "your desire for me makes me feel like an object and that's bad so your desire is bad." It's one of those slippery slope rationalizations where one could use it as a way to unfairly rationalize their point of view over that of their partner.
Interestingly, you have attempted to bring religion into something I'm not sure religion belongs: my bed. And this may be where our disconnect lies: I never ever see sex as sinful and I think sex between two (or more) people is not any more or less Earth shattering then snuggling, talking, arguing, or debating (in fact I've done all of the above while engaged in the act).
So I do agree that the question of "what is love" is profound, I don't know that it is really the central feature of this debate. I know what love is - to me - in this regard at least: I believe that I should be able to expect the woman in my life to be just as respectful of my desires as I am of hers. I don't presume to define her desires as "good" or "bad" however, and I expect that she will treat me with the same respect. That's really what this is all about: respect. Your husband desires sex because, to him, that is the way he expresses his love. You deny that desire (in so doing, you are denying his love), and then you wonder why his eyes wander.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Lance,
Excellent writing.
I agree completely that religion does not belong in anyone's bed.
Because that would automatically be a three-way, right?
And that would be terribly wrong.
According to somebody's religion..... ;-)
March 18th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
To point the finger at the other is just childish and immature.
Indeed. Does this sound familiar?
"I feel VIOLATED by the MALE GAAAAAAZE!!!"
"I'm not a CEO because MEN have held women down for CENTURIES!!!"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
"Now, Schlessinger spewing insane antiwoman vitriol is hardly news in itself....An income and a room of one's own will only get a woman writer so far these days; if she wants to hit the big time, a deep-seated hatred of her own gender helps a bundle."
It is possible that Schlessinger has found a niche market where it is acceptable to blame women rather than men. But it is nonsense to say that blaming women is generally a good option for advancing one's career prospects. If you want to get a good position in the media, publishing, academia, or various government bureaucracies, then portraying women as victims and blaming men is the best course of action.
This is a typical feminist tactic. Find a voice of dissent from the existing orthodoxy. Then portray them as some all-powerful, all-conquering oppressor working for the vested interests. And portray yourself as some marginalised brave dissenter.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
When he was Governor of New York, Spitzer signed into law a measure that increases the penalties for men caught trying to purchase sex (including jail terms of up to 12 months). www.reason.com/news/show/125475.html
As Attorney-General, Spitzer went out of his way to prosecute prostitution.
If this guy is not the biggest hypocrite around, then who is? Rather than feel sorry for Spitzer, we should feel sorry for those less powerful men who have been victims of his reign of puritanical terror.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
" ...a deep-seated hatred of her own gender helps a bundle."
In more polite times, that would be simply called self-reflection.
But in feminist NewThinK Era, it is a crime to think.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
KellyMack --
Nice writing!
What direction does your finger point in when you are happy?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Re: Eliot & Silda....All "breaches of trust" happen because the relationship is ripe for it.
Elliot is/was a public figure & frankly all that I've heard has been really hard to defend & as for Silda I simply don't know enough to comment with confidence either way as to the possible why's & maybe's that Glenn Sacks opines about.
If I were Eliot the main thing on my mind would be "where to now?" Marriage counciling....a long vacation... who knows ? But one thing's for sure....I would want to know if there's still a marriage left & if not how much is it going to cost me. Then there's the other illegal stuff that's sure to destroy what little is left after that.
My advice to Eliot (for what it's worth) BE SURE TO KEEP YOUR BOOK ROYALTIES DUDE !!!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Lance, you said: Your husband desires sex because, to him, that is the way he expresses his love. You deny that desire (in so doing, you are denying his love), and then you wonder why his eyes wander.
A sexual act imposed on another in disregard for his or her legitimate objection is not an act of love regardless of the sincerest of motives. Mayber you need to express your love in another way (IF she objects reasonably) and not just go looking elsewhere.
Anyway, I get the idea I am "outmanned" here.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:00 am
(Ann) -- "A sexual act imposed on another in disregard for his or her legitimate objection is not an act of love regardless of the sincerest of motives..."
You really need to watch "Last Tango in Paris" --- a movie from 1972 with Marlon Brando and Maria Schnieder.
You will see that love can indeed involve disregard and willing objection.
You are naive.
But that's OK.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:25 am
ann: "Mayber you need to express your love in another way (IF she objects reasonably) and not just go looking elsewhere."
So then it is his job to jump through hoops and change his ways while you are unwilling to do the same. And further, you should be able to exhibit this domination over your so-called partner without fear of reprisal in the form of him looking elsewhere because it is up to you to determine what is and what is not reasonable. I believe we have just come back to my original point: in your world, he should just "man-up" and take it because at best his desires are a nuisance and at worst they are criminal. I really do wonder what happens when he doesn't satisfy a desire of yours. Do you "man-up" and take it as well, or do your rules only apply to him and not the other way around?
ann: "Anyway, I get the idea I am "outmanned" here."
Oh I don't know. I don't think it has anything to do with you being male or female ... instead it has everything to do with you being unable to see things from a point of view other then your own. It's the your-way-or-the-highway or worse the your-way-or-deal-with-it mentality you exhibit that bothers me (I can't speak for the others).
March 19th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Ann, how did you get from his eye wandering because you deny him sex, to marital rape???
March 19th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Oh, and P.S.
Thanks for the welcome, folks :)
March 19th, 2008 at 12:29 am
roy: "Lance, Excellent writing. I agree completely that religion does not belong in anyone's bed. Because that would automatically be a three-way, right? And that would be terribly wrong. According to somebody's religion."
Hehe...thanks! Although I was expecting someone to say something like: "I don't know about you, but God gets prayed to a bunch when I'm in bed with someone." Oh well.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:48 am
KellyMac: "Ann, how did you get from his eye wandering because you deny him sex, to marital rape???"
I figured it was just a matter of time until she went there. She started by saying that people who recognize the significance of masculine needs imply that men are weak. When that didn't work, she followed that by calling people who disagree with her position "childish and immature." And now she is suggesting that anyone who recognizes masculine needs are being rape apologists. Fun stuff really. She says she's not a feminist, but she has got a lot of the traits. She then went down the religious path which is a bit of a curve ball for a feminist, so I'll take her at her word. This is my first interaction with Ann. Perhaps a different subject matter would be a better fit.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:50 am
In any case, welcome to the party Kelly! Nice web page. There are a lot of women here who are outspoken against the hypocrisy of feminism and are in search of a more egalitarian movement, but very few go to the lengths of your blog. Very nice! I've added it to my list.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Nick: "If this guy is not the biggest hypocrite around, then who is? Rather than feel sorry for Spitzer, we should feel sorry for those less powerful men who have been victims of his reign of puritanical terror."
Well said. This is what I find despicable. I couldn't care less who he (or anyone else) slept with. But to make it your life's mission to stomp out prostitution but then use you privilege to still purchase the services of them....despicable.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Steve Moxon on prostitution:
At first glance, prostitution is how the sexes get along when all is laid bare. Sex swapped, supposedly for resources. It's not. Or rather, at root - at least for the classic professional prostitute - it's not. With money being proxy for status, women in general are open to the possibility of sex - even behind the back of a long-term partner - with a man they judge to be high status by virtue of the money he has. This is not having sex for money though. The money a man provides through presents and picking up the tab for a woman during courtship is not payment either, but tokens of status or reliability to persuade her to be a long-term partner. A fee to a professional prostitute, from a biological perspective, is akin to this.
Yet long-term partnership is not, of course, the object of prostitution, so prostitution is more that a short-circuit of courtship. It's a distortion of it. For some reason, women here are exploiting the natural male desire for novel sex with a variety of partners. Most women would never prostitute themselves..why any women would want to do so is the interesting question.
The answer to the other question here, of why men pay for sex, is also more complicated than you think. There is the joke that men don't pay for sex so much as for the woman to go away afterwards. There is truth in this...
A now mainstream view has arisen by the default of nobody bothering to challenge it, that the forfeit of resources by men in exchange for sex, somehow is men exercising "power" over women. Handing over money is reckoned to be either in itself somehow hurtful to women, or to insufficiently offset some other hurt that attends the transaction. How this may be hurtful or what kind of hurt it might be, is never ventured. Prostitution is regarded as..intrinsically oppressive to women. This is at root a denial of the acceptability or even the existence of natural male sexual behavior. Simple prejudice towards men.
From "The Woman Racket", Chapter 12.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:27 am
KellyMac,
You can't just accept our "welcome."
Now, you have to write!
Hello to your new job!
March 19th, 2008 at 5:38 am
I agree with the more fundamental excuse that fidelity in marriage is too much to expect of any man or woman. Kudos to those who can. But the reality is that sex is human and humanity does not stop at the bedroom door. I am faithful because my partner gives me all that I need, beyond sex, she makes me feel like I am important in her life. I am no longer married, not because of the infrequent sex that I tolerated for years, but because my ex decided it was over. Sex is not the end all. It is one factor. No man should allow his career to be destroyed because of it. Mr. Spitzer fixed many abuses in the system, corporate, insurance, fraud, corruption. We have all lost an ally.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Feminism is about both genders (try not to laugh too hard)
Slwerner-“Meeting the needs and desires of our loved ones (especially our spouses) is something that I truly believe we ought to seek to do out of our love for them, not because we think less of them for having such needs. When both parties are thus involved, the reciprocation creates a positive feed-back loop. “
Exactly….meeting our partners needs feels good (as in it feels better to give than to receive)
Demonspawn
On the contrary, many women hold sex as a bargaining chip, become too controlling, naggy and demanding and as a result men find sex elsewhere.
I frequent relationship message boards. One of the common reoccurring themes is "why has my BF/husband turned to porn and ignore sex with me?"
After a few questions to said women, the answer often becomes evident: He got tired of jumping thru your hoops to get laid and took matters into his own hand.
If cheating is bad, then consider that porn might prevent cheating from happening...so why do so many women get all excited about porn? would you rather he frequent a prostitute or take matters into his own hands? Seems someone is taking his needs seriously enough and rather than cheating, he is relieving his stress by hisself (deliberate misspelling). SOmetimes women need to chose their battles (they do not get to have it their way all the time).....you do not want to meet his sexual needs fully and you do not want him to cheat, bu you do not want him to look at other women either.......Let's be real here and admit you like the power that denying him sex gvies you and you get real annoyed if he dares control his own sexuality......
March 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
PK: I had said: “I don't think the guy needed a sleazy hooker.”
Akhi responded: "I believe she was a high paid hooker, not a sleazy one."
PK writes: from dictionary.com, "sleazy":
1. contemptibly low, mean, or disreputable: sleazy politics.
2. squalid; sordid; filthy; dilapidated: a sleazy hotel.
3. thin or poor in texture, as a fabric; cheap; flimsy: a sleazy dress; a sleazy excuse.
"I checked out the woman's myspace photos and bio and I stand by what I said: She seems "sleazy" or disreputable. I'm not talking about her profession but rather her overall demeanor. She appeared low class. There are high paid hookers who can (and often are) escorts that can attend high profile gatherings but this woman wouldn't have been able to pull it off.
I made that point for a reason because, this particular woman, at least, didn't fit the profile of the many high class women that Spitzer would have encountered in his natural daily life. One of the most important tenets of feminist dogma is that as career women gain status and power, that alpha males they crave will find that attractive about them."
I checked out the woman's myspace page as well. I couldn't view much of it outside the frton page cuz I have been kicked off myspace for daring to speak up against the matriarchy (even suggesting that matriarchy exists is asking for feminist attacks on your person and personailty) and daring to suggest publicly that feminism is not about making life better for both genders) and I agree she is no "high class" hooker, I said she was a "high paid" hooker (note the difference). Are there higher paid hookers than her? for sure......are there classier hookers than her? for sure...I just know that there are far sleazier hookers than her (she may not be the classiest, but there are far sleazier oens than her....I havent seen enough of her myspace stuff to decide.
I spent two summers driving an airport shuttle van out of LAX (Los Angeles International Airport). the first summer they wouldn’t let me do many Hollywood runs cuz I was inexperienced and it was easy to get lost in the hills (among other places). The second summer I began doing a lot more runs in and out of Hollywood and at one point, I said to myself, "I have been in and out of Hollywood all this time I haven't seen a single hooker. Before long I find myself at about 3 am waiting for a 4 am pickup (after 9/11, a 7 or 8 am flight might necessitates a very early pickup, especially for international flights since TSA wanted people there hours in advance and a shuttle van often would pick up more than one person). Out of the nowhere a not so attractive woman appeared and approached my van (I was smoking a cigarette, enjoying my time off-start at 8 pm and work til 8 am or later) scantily dressed. She propositioned me and before I could turn her down she whips out her breast offering it to me (luckily she is at the opposite window from the driver seat cuz she was hardly what you would call classy or attractive (the exact opposite). I begged her to put her booby back from whence it came and offered her a few cigarettes (not in exchange, just as I would give a few cigarettes to a beggar), she was asking for anything, money, drugs, etc. That is my experience with the slaeazy hooker and to me, Ashley hardly fits the bill (she wasn't exactly hig class, but nowhere near the one I experienced that night).......not to be too disagreeable or hair splitting...:)
March 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
KellyMac,
I want to echo what others have said - as a rational thought female voice you are not only most certainly welcome, you are a much needed voice; great website - I about fell off my chair over the playground post; and you should certainly consider doing some writing for this site as well. I'm sure that Glenn would love to have more of the woman's perspective regarding the pitfalls of today’s Feminism. It's too easy for Men's rights proponents to be portrayed as nothing more than a bunch of bitter angry old men.
Many of us are, in fact, happily married (23 years myself) men who have or who are actively helping the rearing of our children. Some, like myself, who have never suffered from divorce nor even a bad relationship with women can never-the-less grasp that there is something seriously out of balance regarding the “battle of the sexes” that the Feminist movement has launched. Personally, I have greater fears for the long-term well-being of my teenage son than I ever had for my now grown daughters. Even though, as women, they face certain physical threats more than do men, yet, I know that the system of laws is designed with their protection in mind, and I rest assured that the vast majority of men will always treat women who act like lady’s with the proper respect and care.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in a sea of angry Feminist screeching. Seems to me it’s not MRA’s who are old, bitter, and angry – it’s those Feminists.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
A dead mouse for Ann
Ann philosophizes: "Lance, you said: Your husband desires sex because, to him, that is the way he expresses his love. You deny that desire (in so doing, you are denying his love), and then you wonder why his eyes wander.
A sexual act imposed on another in disregard for his or her legitimate objection is not an act of love regardless of the sincerest of motives. Mayber you need to express your love in another way (IF she objects reasonably) and not just go looking elsewhere.
Anyway, I get the idea I am "outmanned" here."
PK fires off his cooty machine gun by saying: There's an old saying that men differ from women in that they can seperate love from sex. Now there's some claims from MEN that sex is sometimes an expression of love. Wow!
That said, Ann, let me talk about my cat for a moment. (No, don't go there you dirty thinkers!) He expresses his love for us by bringing home birds (sometimes live, sometimes dead), mice, and licking us in places that we don't want licked. Now despite our dislike for how he expresses his love for us, we don't want to punish him for acting in this manner because we know it would really hurt his feelings. So we try to encourage other ways for him to show his love that all of us can settle on (such as doing tricks.)
As you can see, we prefer to express our love for someone else in a manner that we enjoy. If you enjoy going to the amusement park, you may want to take your beloved there as well. Women sometimes make this mistake by wanting to take men shoe shopping. I'd rather they bring home dead birds and mice myself. And yes, sometimes we confuse and even undermine love by trying to force our expectations on the targets of our affection.
That said, it's not just up to men to express his love in a manner that his wife enjoys but also vice-versa: She should find ways to accomodate his style just as men accommodate women by buying them meals, doing the asking out, holding open doors, etc. In fact, most women really do "get this" based upon the title stories on women's magazines encouraging women to be more sexy and please men in bed.
Perhaps you're not like this, but you're in the minority. That's one of the problems with many women (and many men too) (not necessarily feminists) who try to judge men's and women's behavior: They use standards based upon their ideals rather than what most people want.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sleazy Hookers
And with that heading in my comment, this page will probably now get a million hits from google... Look out!
Ok, Akhi is splitting hairs (even if he doesn't mean to) when he writes: "That is my experience with the slaeazy hooker and to me, Ashley hardly fits the bill (she wasn't exactly hig class, but nowhere near the one I experienced that night).......not to be too disagreeable or hair splitting...:)"
I'lll concur that the pay grade in addition to the overall health of the hooker helps to qualify them as "sleazy" or not. It's a matter of degree too. While the hooker you're talking about was clearly sleazy "squalid; sordid; filthy; dilapidated" by nearly anyone's standard, I was maybe not being clear that Spitzer's hooker was "sleazy" by _his_ and his culture's standard.
Then again, and don't take this the wrong way, you and I are "sleazy" by their standards too. These are high society elitist snobs after all. My wife and I tried to watch a show on Bravo entitled: "The Real Housewives of New York" and she got disgusted by their snobbishess and materialism. (We almost wished communism would take over.) They basically are using money solely as a tool to engage in cliquish behavior. It would be different if they were attractive or even intelligent but other than their family background and wealthy inheritance, I wouldn't view them as more worldly or noble than a suburbanite living in a townhome. If you want a laugh, check it out. Their townhomes in the squalid conditions of Manhattan were no actually worse than that of the suburban area where I live!
For an elitist such as Spitzer, geting nailed with a "sleazy hooker" (using "sleazy" as I term it above) is devestating. He is now a pariah in that social scene that goes from Manhattan, to The Hamptons, to Martha's Vineyard, to Georgetown, to Palm Springs.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
On KellyMac’s page, she posts about and links to an article which discusses affairs – including those by women. This article, part of a three part series, links to this:
The Infidelity Files Day 3
Which contain the following two lists, which I thought would be apropos, given the topic’s being discussed herein:
How to stop your husband having an affair
1 Be sexual and adventurous, even if you are tired.
2 Let him feel that he's sexually exciting, and more than just an equity lawyer or headmaster.
3 Let him know that you fancy him.
4 Let him know you feel you're lucky to have him.
5 Keep polishing his ego.
6 Don't go to bed with a layer of moisturiser on your face.
7 Don't dye your hair or shave your legs in front of him.
8 Don't lose your own self-respect.
9 Be interested in his life, but don't live only through him.
10 Don't talk about the children in bed.
And there was also this, just to keep it fair and balanced (on my part):
How to stop your wife having an affair
1 Arrange surprises for her.
2 Treat her as a mistress rather than as a mother or a wife.
3 Be romantic, take her out on dates, let her feel that she's a woman and desirable.
4 Buy her a negligée rather than a vacuum cleaner as a birthday or Christmas present.
5 Constantly show her that you find her attractive, interesting, exciting and romantic.
6 Don't go to bed with your T-shirt tucked into your Y-fronts.
7 Don't turn on the television as soon as you come home.
8 Listen to her.
9 Take her seriously.
10 Respect what she does in the home and in her job.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
No country for old, angry men
slwerner says: "Feminism. It's too easy for Men's rights proponents to be portrayed as nothing more than a bunch of bitter angry old men."
PK observes: There's a bit of a contradiction here: If a man has had issues then he's dismissed as an unmanly "victim" (which is interesting considering such a comment only validates the claim that feminism is sexist.)
On the other hand, most feminists tend to be middle and upper class women often from the suburbs who tend to be as far removed from oppression as it's possible to get. The saying goes that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and consequently there are a lot of wheels that are over-greased and still squeaky. Or as (I hate to admit I saw this show), they said on M*A*S*H: It's the victims who _can't_ cry for help that need it the most.
Feminism became overwhelmingly popular because horny men just loved patronizing attractive, middle class white women. Damsels in distress are quite desirable as targets to rescue.
That said, the men here are an interesting cross section of society. Some of us are married and normal. Some of us went through negative experiences with feminism in college but then went on. Some are men who have decided to remain single. In other words, individuals (which is what feminism was supposed to do for women.)
March 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I really agree that both husband and wife should meet the legitimate needs of each other. What I do not believe is that one should have to pander to keep the other from straying. I believe that each person has to commit to not straying. I thought that is what marriage was. For better or worse, until death. Too many commenters here seem to be all about me, me, me and if not me I will go get it somewhere else. Sad, self centered and unloving.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ann, to be clear, I do not believe that any relationship should be about me..me..me. If anything, I am advocating exactly the opposite and it sounds to me like you are the one thinking about me..me..me.
My problem with your point has been your fixation on "legitimate needs." Who defines what is and what is not legitimate? In my mind, sexual desire is just as legitimate as any other need. Now you can choose to not agree with my assessment, but then be prepared to share the blame if your significant other strays if he or she sees sexual desire as a legitimate need and if you choose to disregard it. You don't get to define legitimacy for other people...you just don't, plain and simple. Love is supposed to be about mutual respect. Disregarding another person's definition of legitimacy because it doesn't fit within your own is disrespectful. It isn't pandering to recognize another's need as being legitimate...it is showing love and acceptance for who that person is. That is being truly self-less.
(before you say it, I'm not advocating pedophilia, rape, torture, etc...etc...).
March 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
slwerner, nice list. The "polishing the ego" could probably go for both men and women as, from what I have seen, as the egos of women are at least as large as those of men. Other then that, there are words to live by there!
March 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Ann claims - "Too many commenters here seem to be all about me, me, me and if not me I will go get it somewhere else. Sad, self centered and unloving."
Sorry Ann,
I just don't see this. The posters I've read have kept it in very general terms that some men (in hypotheical situations) can, and do respond to the withholding of (or begrudgened provison of [is that you, Ann]) sexual intimacy by looking elsewhere. I've not read one instance where a poster has personalized this observation. If I've missed one, perhaps you'll point it out?
I think you're becoming desparate to avoid having to come to the uncomfortable conclusion that parts of what you've proclaimed have been unfounded. Talk about sad and self-centerd.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
slwerner, do you have the link on Kelly's page where she talks about this? The link you provided looks to be broken or something. Thanks!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Her post of the article is at Infidelity: Being Unfaithful Makes Me Happy.
Her link to the article (2nd in series) is in the second paragraph.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This stuff sounds like something from an American woman. On the contrary, I think these are the reasons why American women are often so ambivalent and hostile towards men:
Tip: 3 Be romantic, take her out on dates, let her feel that she's a woman and desirable.
PK observes: The purpose of courtship is to be emotionally and personally intense to test and evaluate each other. I don't want to say that marriage is about taking someone for granted, but it does offer men and women stability: Knowing that someone is waiting for you on the other side of the door. Courtship on the other hand was about playing the field.
American women tend to love "dates" so much because it's about the man blowing money to impress her. But when she's married to him, all they're doing is blowing THEIR money. I know women who didn't let that act as an obstacle and they were miserable that their boyfriend/husband couldn't continue to treat them as if he was trying to woo her.
Tip: 4 Buy her a negligée rather than a vacuum cleaner as a birthday or Christmas present.
PK: I personally would love to get a Dyson vacuum cleaner (if any of your are listening) or a power tool. Ironically, I hate getting clothing on my birthday or Christmas (since I view buying those as a chore.) It's about getting people what they want and importantly, can use. Too many Americans buy crap for presents just because they think and told they should.
Tip: 5 Constantly show her that you find her attractive, interesting, exciting and romantic.
PK: Once again, this boils down to men having to act as if they're an insecure suitor all the time. "Constantly" show her? When I'm home, I enjoy relaxing and being myself sometimes. In addition, a woman needs at times to shave her legs and put on a face mask. We don't need to parade this around but marriage is as much about feeling comfortable as it is feeling "excited."
Tip: 7 Don't turn on the television as soon as you come home.
PK: Women hate this, but men love it. In addition, men need some time to shutdown from their work and commute thinking and TV fills this need nicely. One of the worst things a woman can do is insist that he immediately jump into a romantic mood the moment he comes in through the door (ironically, men are told that they are inconsiderate of women's moods and try to skip foreplay!)
Tip 8 Listen to her.
PK: As Kirk Douglas recently pointed out in an interview with Jay Leno: When he got a stroke and had to speak slowly, he discovered that people listened better. Demanding someone listen to you is the best way to get them to NOT want to listen. Women have a natural urge to talk moreso than men (not necessarily me.)
If a man comes home from a long day at work and a rough commute, the last thing he wants is to have to sit down at the table immediately and listen to her download her entire day for him over the next hour. That's just the way men are. That said, if they can let us crack open a beer (or tea for me), sit down and watch some History Channel, and relax an hour I will be reasonably attentive.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Marital sex rights
Ann writes: "I really agree that both husband and wife should meet the legitimate needs of each other. What I do not believe is that one should have to pander to keep the other from straying. I believe that each person has to commit to not straying. I thought that is what marriage was. For better or worse, until death. Too many commenters here seem to be all about me, me, me and if not me I will go get it somewhere else. Sad, self centered and unloving."
PK: I think you're taking what people are saying out of context. Most of us are addressing a very broad, extreme statement that it's NEVER right to stray or cheat. When countering that kind of strong statement it may appear that we're celebrating cheaters when all we're doing is looking at things in a realistic manner. By definition, if you're saying that people should try to meet each other's needs than most here would agree with you that cheating isn't necessary. Yes?
What many of us are concerned about are women, not necessarily feminists (by name) but those who have the attitude about women's one-sided "rights". Many women have said they believe that marraige is this arrangement where a man pledges his income and life to a woman but she still reserves the right to deny sex to him, for any reason, as a power grab. In addition, due to the marriage vows (and divorce courts) he can't legimately go somewhere else. It's this "liberated independent power hungry dictator" attitude that is common among American women even if they don't call themselves feminists.
For what it's worth, I and my wife agree with you. We've weathered rough times and are committed to each other even if that means that maybe the grass might be greener at times but at least this is our grass. Fair enough?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
POLISH KNIGHT,
YOU ARE MUSCH MORE THOUGHTFUL THAN MOST ON THIS BLOG. I KNOW I AM NONE OF THE THINGS THAT SOME HAVE CALLED ME AND I KNOW THAT I DO NOT THINK WHAT SOME HAVE SAID. THIS BLOG IS A TRUE WASTE OF TIME. TOO MANY SEXUAL FEARS I GUESS.
THANKS.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Ann, thank you (blush)
Try to take this in stride. I have plenty of people here disagree with me too. It's just in the nature of this forum and debate. Don't try to guess what the men are thinking (sexual fears.) It's probably something more innocent which is that they're taking your arguments, associating them with something similar another woman said, and maybe drawing the wrong interpretation. Or sometimes they're on an entirely different wavelength. Or sometimes they just plain disagree with you and that's that.
There are other fish to fry. I'm personally ready to throw something out of my balcony in rage after seeing Glenn praise a racist, sexist bashing cartoon because it uses white guilt. There's so much good stuff to argue over, that it's not worth hanging onto one debate. Nothing to see here. Move along!
March 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ann - "YOU ARE MUSCH MORE THOUGHTFUL THAN MOST ON THIS BLOG. "
Oh my,
How thoughtless of us to challenge your assertions and accusations. What evil and oppressing patriarchs we are.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Glenn asked for this, and I didn't spot it posted here before I started looking for it:
Dr Laura's blog entry on why there's not a "Care and Feeding of Wives" book.
http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/01/31/when-a-man-isnt-loved-by-a-woman/
None of us know the relationship between Spitzer and his spouse. She may be shocked, she may be indifferent, she may be a shrew, she may be doing the same things that he is, she may be aware and planning her own political carreer, she may consider it a trade off to being married to someone who's a powerful "type A" personality. For all we know, she may be grateful that he's not pestering her for sex. They may have mutually decided against a divorce to maintain his political viability, which would be in both of their interests, as well as their child(ren). We have no way of knowing, and without any insight to what they have established, no way of determining Mrs Spitzer's contribution, or the level of betrayal.
What's between them is their business, and none of mine.
My issue with Spitzer and the reporting is his own hipocracy in prosecuting criminals (earlier in his career), and participating as the executive of a state, which is responsible for the enforcement of laws. He's lost his moral authority to do so.
The other issue I note is that since he's been in trouble, the press rarely report him as "Spitzer (D)", just "Spitzer". If this were a Republican, there would be considerably more mention linking him with the party, and the reason why would be because Republicans try to claim a more moral background, and so get called on their hipocracy when they blow it. (I'm a Libertarian, by the way)
In a general sense, I understand Dr Laura's statement to say that there's a contribution to this made by his spouse, be it how pleasant she is to be around, her treatment of him in general, and what their respective sex drives are.
I think this should be a lesson to people running for office: quit advocating the goverment's authoriatarian involvement in people's day to day lives, especially when your own family is FUBAR'd.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
(Ann suggested) --"Too many commenters here seem to be all about me, me, me..."
Girl, that is because when you go to divorce court it is all about me, me, me!
And the ME is always female!
Regrets for the "girl" remark.
It's a compliment.
And an assumption....
March 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
It's funny, the whole premise of this thread adds up to a great reason NOT to get married...ever. Think about it, someone else can hold your sexuality over your head, like some kind of Sword of Damocles...."Do what I say, or no p**sy for you for 6 weeks". Not married? Go tag the neighbor's daughter. Married? Well, you're hooped buddy. Good news is male sex toys are finally starting to become useful for more than gag gifts, er, provided the missus is "ok" with porn.
Yeah, that's the type of life I'd want...can't see WHY men might not want to get married....
March 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
(Ann again) -- "THIS BLOG IS A TRUE WASTE OF TIME. TOO MANY SEXUAL FEARS I GUESS."
Now this is interesting psychological territory....
Because if you are being truthful, you are expressing that you have sexual fears about W-O-R-D-S.
Just words, on a screen.
And if indeed you have sexual fears, then spending time here to write more and explore your phobias would surely be worthwhile and anything but a waste of time.
Try the deep end of the pool and let us know if you can swim!
March 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Ya know, when we're talking about contributions, here, I find a number of similarities between a number of wealthy and powerful people's marriages, including Paul McCartney's late relationship.
We don't know what the wife's contribution is. I'm pretty certain, it doesn't consist of cooking, laundry, vacuuming and child rearing. I vaguely remember a quote from Jerry Hall, about needing a cook and a maid.
What, exactly, is Mr Spitzer getting out of the deal? The appearance of a nuclear family? A PR rep or spokesman? A decoration for press conferences that can applaud and look at him adoringly? Someone to show up at charity events and express her concern for this or that noble cause du jour? Obviously, she's much too busy doing whatever it is to travel with him, or she's bored with it.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Ann: "YOU ARE MUSCH MORE THOUGHTFUL THAN MOST ON THIS BLOG. I KNOW I AM NONE OF THE THINGS THAT SOME HAVE CALLED ME AND I KNOW THAT I DO NOT THINK WHAT SOME HAVE SAID."
Ann, I'm not sure that I called you anything. I simply argued that it sounds like you are being pretty one-sided in your view. I stand by that: you seem to think you corner the market on the true definition of "legitimate."
You have not voiced any disagreement with that assertion. You have only tried to shift attention elsewhere (such as in the statement above when you are trying to dole out your charms).
Ann: "TOO MANY SEXUAL FEARS I GUESS."
I'm sorry to hear that we bring out your fear of sex. That was not our intent (though if it is a fear then it may be therapeutic to talk about it a bit).
So if you feel that I am thoughtless simply because I question your point of view, do you also look at yourself as equally thoughtless for questioning mine?
March 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Dr Laura's blog on her answers on cheating in general, and Spitzer in specifics:
http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/03/12/go-to-the-videotape/trackback/
Go To The Videotape!
March 12, 2008 on 10:21 am | In Infidelity, Eliot Spitzer, Today Show EMail This Post
About two months ago, my publisher, Harper Collins, called me up to tell me that The Today Show wanted to interview me in the 8AM hour on Tuesday, March 11, the day that my new book, Stop Whining, Start Living was going to be published. I said, “Great!”
Last week, I did the “pre-interview” with one of their producers, and they called me back to say they wanted to have my interview go for two segments. I said “Even better!”
Then, at 4PM on Monday, March 10, they called up and asked if I would also participate in a “panel” segment entitled “Why Men Cheat.” I went “uh oh.”
I hate doing panels. I hate all the talking heads shouting over each other. And I feared they would end up asking about tabloid gossip and not the real topic, but they reaffirmed that they really wanted to hear my opinion about “Why Men Cheat.”
So, silly me, on I went. Meredith Vieira asked the three panelists, “Why do men cheat?” Panelist #1 said that the legacy of promiscuous cavemen has created an evolutionary tendency toward infidelity among today’s men. Hmmm.
Panelist #2 said something to the effect that men often cheat because they are missing something physically, mentally or emotionally in their relationship with someone. Who might be responsible for this missing “something” was not specifically mentioned. Hmm….could it be the wife? The boss? Co-workers?
So Panelist #3 (that’s me) responded:
“Men need validation. When they come into the world they are born of women and getting their validation from mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman. And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like a hero, he’s very susceptible to the charms of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days women don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give a man what they need.”
Maybe I should have had a sign around my neck that said I was not talking specifically about the governor of New York’s current alleged problems with money transfers and a $5,000 an hour call-girl ring. Certainly a man who won the governorship of the second largest state in the nation does not sound like a man who needs validation to feel like a success. I was answering the question asked: “Why do men cheat?”
Suddenly, the topic WAS about the New York governor. To my utter amazement, Panelist #1 proclaimed that the New York governor’s high cheekbones and protuberant eyebrows indicated high levels of testosterone which would be a strong indicator of infidelity.
Panelist #2 said that, speaking of testosterone, highly testosteroned people tend not to worry as much about the consequences of the risks they take. (I guess that explains the use of steroids in baseball).
Ms. Vieira then asked why a man of such power as the New York governor would risk everything to carry on a tawdry relationship. Note: This was the first time that Ms. Vieira referred to the governor in any way in the entire segment. Panelist #3 (that’s me!) responded:
“When a person is in a high position of power, especially a man, there is a sense of entitlement and a sense of being…above the law because of the importance of what they do - because of the importance of who they are.”
Since that fleeting moment, I have been accused of the most heinous of crimes (apparently far worse than the foibles of politicians and celebrities): giving my opinion and advice. According to The New York Times, Meredith Vieira was “aghast” at my comments. In the 10 am hour, Ann Curry tried to take me to task for “things that were said about the governor.” Wrong! And finally the renowned News Team at The Huffington Post proclaimed “Dr. Laura Blames Spitzer’s Wife”.
In three segments over 2 hours I never made a comment about the Governor’s wife. And my only direct comment about the Governor was that powerful men sometimes feel an unwarranted sense of entitlement. I answered the question they asked, not the question I’ve been accused of answering.
Now here’s the good news. Thank goodness I had bought a new outfit for the program, and I was feeling pretty good yesterday morning, or else I might have gotten a little ticked off that my words were so ludicrously taken out of context.
If you don’t believe me, feel free to go to the videotape (click here). And don’t whine for me. I’m having a great time in New York - good friends, good restaurants, and almost-Spring weather.
On a more serious note: The stories that we see on the news and the Internet 24/7 indicate an epidemic of dysfunctionality in America in the relationships of the powerful, talented, and merely famous. The sad part is it is only the tip of the iceberg in our society. And sadder still is knowing that so many children are being hurt by these problems.
TrackBack URI
March 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
link to the video http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23573159#23573159
link to her blog http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/03/12/go-to-the-videotape/
March 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Ann,
You can also choose to wade in from the shallow end of the pool.
Your voice is needed and appreciated.
If nothing else good happens, at least you get to refine your writing style, right?
Gotta put out if you want to get back!
March 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
These are the slogans from the police state portrayed in "1984".
The unskpoken matra of today is ...
Matriarchy is Patriarchy
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Interesting to see how a thread just died,
Is was all about Ann.
She disappeared.
I really respect her....
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
roy: "Interesting to see how a thread just died, Is was all about Ann. She disappeared. I really respect her...."
True. It is unfortunate that she left. I hope she returns for another go on another thread. Next time it may even be something that we agree on!
Seeing something from another's point of view is hard and sometimes even scary. I'm sorry if it scared her away, but methinks that she is probably a big girl and can take it.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The entertaining part is I agree with a fundamental part of Ann's original post: I too find Dr. Laura to be patronizing and insulting in tone. The idea that she wants to treat men as pets is disgusting, and her flawed belief that men are simple animals in comparison to the complex female creature is particularly insulting.
So while Dr. Laura thinks that women hold all of the cards and therefore must make a conscious decision to dole them out to make everyone happy, she refuses to recognize the input men could have on that process in order to help their women to that realization. She has said as much when confronted by someone who asks for a "Care and Feeding for your Wife" book. She sees no reason for it - her audience is the wife, not the husband. What she doesn't realize is not all wives read self help books and it would be a huge help for men who do to know how to convince their wives that a man's need is just as important as a woman's need.
So in summary, Dr. Laura is absolutely right on target to say to women: look, you shouldn't be so selfish and you should realize that both partners need to be happy and it is your job as his wife to help him to be happy if you want him to stick around. But that's the extent of it. I know I probably will never buy the book for it's insulting tone.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I still find it interesting that one governor is stepping down and the one we installed admitted to adultery after being installed and he is applauded. Confusing it is that he said "I do not feel I have broken my commitment to the citizens of New York state,"
I also find it disturbing that he said in is inaugural speech "... and if we are going to build a viable future for New York, we are going to have to help single MOTHERS who have two jobs."
b
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
No truth is found in making another responsible for someone else's actions.
To claim otherwise is to give another power over one's life which renders oneself powerless.
Great excuse, but that is all it is, and a lie. If it is true, then we are only puppets of another, lacking the ability to respond, and slaves.
To be free is to know the power is yours to stand against temptation.
Without such knowledge all is lost, all hope, all faith and all love, all things we yearn for, for a better tomorrow.
To be excused is to be condemned to an existence with no power to change because you never had the choice.
Excuses spares one from facing personal failure, but it also denies power to have anything worth living for.
Better to be wrong and seek forgiveness than to yeild all power and any hope for life.
JT
March 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[...] I discussed Dr. Laura's Controversial Comments about the Spitzers on the Maria Sanchez Show on KVTA AM 1520 in Ventura, CA (3/19/08). [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
[...] discussed Dr. Laura's Controversial Comments about the Spitzers on the Maria Sanchez Show on KVTA AM 1520 in Ventura, CA [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I have never heard so much BS in one place in all my life.
This guy has no excuse for what he did.
If he wasn't gettin' it...he has the option of divorce.
marriage for better or worse is an immoral vow... it is not Christian.
Jesus Christ expected couples to live within a personal moral environment.
Geezz