Ah, another liberal question and response. What Laura said bothers me. I couldn't possibly just disagree with her. She freaks me out and this speaks to my character. I don't agree with her or you, so now my character is suspect.
I've stated in numerous posts in this thread why I disagree with Laura. You refuse to acknowledge that and resort to the liberal ad hominem. Next thing I know you'll be telling me I'm Lauraphobic.
Sounds like a new age synthesizer CD
“Lauraphobic: Music to wash your sheets by”
I didn’t ask why you disagree with Laura.
I asked about what she _said_ on this particular issue.
I don’t care who the messenger is.
I’m wondering why the message upsets you so much.
And yes, your character is being revealed in this exchange. Insulting application of charged labels where plainly inappropriate, hostile responses to polite comments/questions, dancing around the core issue, focusing on the exact words used instead of the meaning intended, accusations of ad hominems, predictions of insults where none were indicated...just stick to the thread subject, would you please?
If a man needs something which he has sworn to only go to his wife for, and she fails to provide it, isn’t it understandable (albeit still wrong, contemptable, evil, vile, etc.) if, pressed by a deep-seated physiological need, he gets that need met elsewhere? (and please don’t go on attacking me, I’m looking for a discussion of this question - not the messengers - and why the idea in the question upsets certain people so much.)