Posted on 03/12/2008 4:55:51 AM PDT by ciocia
Again? I'm upset now? I'll let this stand. It speaks for itself and, dare I say it, reveals your character.
Let me put this in political terms since this is a political forum. I'm a conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. To blame anyone other than the wrongdoer for a wrong act is puerile -- not to mention a well-known liberal tactic. And to agree with this blame shifting when it's espoused by others suggests a liberal tendency in your thought processes.
hostile responses to polite comments/questions
I'm merely responding in kind to your comments to me. I'm holding up a mirror and you don't even recognize your own words. Review your posts. You've been insulting from the get-go. I'm sorry the truth upsets you.
It’s not blame “shifting”. It’s recognizing that some things don’t happen out of the blue.
That's cool. You're allowed to disagree with her all you want. The fact that you disagree with her, OTOH, does not mean that she's wrong
For my entry into this discussion: the marriage vows have each spouse holding a monopoly on the satisfaction of the sexual needs of the other. With that monopoly, comes a duty to satisfy those needs to the best of one's abilities. I hold that chronic refusal to satisfy one's partner's needs (as distinct from occasionally not feeling up to it) is as big a violation of the marriage vows as infidelity
Suppose Dr. Laura had made her comments in practical terms rather than in moral terms. For example, instead of saying "some wives share the blame for hubby's infidelity" she said "some wives' unreasonable witholding of affection contributes to hubby's later infidelity".
Would you still disagree? I guess what I'm getting at is:
Do you disagree with Dr. Laura's description of the possible *causes* of infidelity, or the way she assigns moral responsibility for infidelity?
Or do you disagree with both?
The reason behind the chronic withholding is the issue.
It’s a symptom of a deeper problem and it may be as simple as you flat out can’t stand your spouse anymore (for various reasons). Not condoning it....just saying “lay back and take it” will only make you grow to hate them if you simply don’t like them very much right then.
A murderer is responsible for shooting someone in the head, even if that person called them an ugly name.
A rapist is still a rapist, even if the victim wore a mini-skirt.
A molester is still a molester, even if the child's mama said it was OK.
An unfaithful spouse is still unfaithful not matter what they want to believe is the cause.
Laura is a woman who hates herself (for being a woman who broke up a marriage). The easiest way to assuage her guilt is to make life hell for other females AND blame the women who's hubbies were untrue....which in turn absolves her of all guilt in her hubbies ruined marriage.
What she said and what her detractors are trying to say she said are nowhere near each other.
Let’s say a cop says that a bank could have implemented certain procedures and policies that would have had a high likelihood of preventing a bank robbery.
Is the cop saying that it’s OK to rob the bank if they don’t? No.
OR, we have our on things in place to prevent a robbery which are different from yours.
Lastly, the cop is expressing an opinion no more valid than that of those who own the bank.
Is it the correct one to the bank? No, and they tell him so.
Will he jump up and down and yell “I told you so” if the bank is robbed? Probably.
Will the bank president take him off his Christmas Card list? Fer sure.
Will he be correct in his original assumption? Maybe not....
-— again, it was his opinion, and maybe the bank still had valid protections in place, but just not the ones he wanted.
Besides, you're talking about a cop who's robbed a bank himself and is shady about his credentials as a cop.
Yeah, a lot of people don’t like it when objective standards are promoted,
and seek to invalidate them by attacking the person espousing them. That’s what’s happening here.
I really don’t care what a person’s past is, or whether in the past they have failed to meet those objective standards, it doesn’t in any way invalidate the correctness of those standards.
It does, however, make you less likely to trust them and more likely to see a hidden agenda.
Especially if you have your own tried and true standards that are pretty strong on their own.
As far as personal attacks go....If Laura had the personality of Barnie on her show, I’d say peronal attacks are out of line.
However, since her schtick is to brutalize just about every caller....then PLAY BALL!
...An unfaithful spouse is still unfaithful not matter what they want to believe is the cause.
No one is disputing that. The cheater made a conscious decision to cheat, so they will ALWAYS be blameworthy. I think we're in agreement on that.
But do you also agree that there at least some instances of infidelity that might have been prevented if one spouse had been more attentive to the needs of the other? To me, that was the main point that Laura was trying to make...it was not that any of the underlying causes absolved the cheating spouse's guilt.
Laura is a woman who hates herself (for being a woman who broke up a marriage). The easiest way to assuage her guilt is to make life hell for other females AND blame the women who's hubbies were untrue....which in turn absolves her of all guilt in her hubbies ruined marriage.
Maybe so. I'm not really concerned with her motives, though.
That's quite a diagnoses. I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. Have you spoken with her?
Honestly,
No...
I’ve seen spouses cheat when they could get sex when and however they wanted from their spouse. A case of a former ballet buddy-— the guy couldn’t keep it in his pants and his wife would have done it in the middle of the highway if he’d have asked (again, something was twisted in his head, not hers).
And I’ve seen spouses be faithful even to those who hadn’t touched them in years. (and yes, women have this problem too as well as men).
Again, infidelity is a symptom of something wrong in that person’s character, not a ‘I wasn’t getting laid so I went looking for some strange.’ They will cheat for a host of reasons, and now, thanks to dear old ‘dr’ L, they can blame it on getting laid only 5 times a week instead of 6 /sarc.
And Laura’s statement I discredit for many many many reasons....personal experience being one.....which turns out, is just as valid as her credentials.
No, but she’s spoken volumes on the air and in books. Behaviors have clear markers——
Look, if someone write a recipe book where many of the ingredients are human body parts, it’s not a stretch to assume they’re a cannibal.
Fine. Keep preaching that women bear no responsibility for their marriage, and men will keep cheating. Since the advent of feminism and the anti-man culture, cheating and divorce rates have risen. Just like the socialists in politics, women have become blinded by their philosophy and ignored the obvious results of that philosophy. Blame men all you want, the results speak volumes and women are not getting what they say they want with the feminist philosophy that seeks to belittle men whenever possible and tells the woman she has no responsibility for the relationship. There are too many women that don’t hate men to waste time with women that do.
I have to disagree with you there.
Sometimes, it is true. . .no matter what one spouse does, the other will cheat because he/she is just evil.
But often, one spouse has neglected the other in some way. That doesn't excuse infidelity, of course, but there is also no excuse for one spouse not to treat the other as they should be treated. You'd be amazed what a change can occur in your spouse if you just start treating him/her differently. (I'm using 'you' and 'your' in a generic way.)
That assumes there is not some medical condition preventing one of the partners from participating in sex. . .right?
No one here has said anything about man hating or blaming men....what we’re simply saying is that every person chooses their actions. Even vaguely veiling that there was a justifiable cause only means if you eleminate that cause, you just allow that person to find another one....
ie, many men who cheat usually ARE getting adequate sex at home (or could be), and often the wife is the one who notes that he was rejecting her first (to assuage his guilt or justify his actions).
There are gobs of girlfriends/mistresses who will tell you that honeyboy SWORE his wife wouldnt’ let him touch her for years...but damn! She’s pregnant again...
Whether it’s in response to a perceived stimuli or not, it’s still a choice. How many threads have we read where some gets pissed and shoots 20 people? Doesn’t matter what they felt, it’s what they did.
As far as cheating goes, golly, since when was it low? Historically, it’s always been an issue, even in lower class cultures...still, even when it was considered normal, its a character issue having to do with keeping a promise.
Divorce? Not pert to this thread or this discussion.
I don't see how either of those examples precludes the possibility that SOME instances of infidelity may have been avoided had the relationship at home been different. That some men completely lack restraint, while others have incredible restraint, does not mean there are no men in between.
Again, infidelity is a symptom of something wrong in that person’s character, not a ‘I wasn’t getting laid so I went looking for some strange.’ They will cheat for a host of reasons, and now, thanks to dear old ‘dr’ L, they can blame it on getting laid only 5 times a week instead of 6 /sarc.
Right. A person's character always plays a role in their decision to cheat. But there are some men who might have been able to overcome those character flaws if they had not been additionally weakened by having unmet physiological needs.
It's kind of like a person trying to lose weight. It's always their choice to pick up food and eat it. Some people can never make any progress simply because they don't feel like controlling themselves. Some people have an iron will when it comes to health, and no matter what is going on around them, they'll stick to carrots and tofu. But some people who are unable to control their diet MIGHT have been able to do so if those around them were more supportive, right?
Notice I used the word "refusal" rather than "inability"
That said, there's more than one way to keep your spouse happy if you are motivated to do so
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.