The latest scandal with Eliot Spitzer has brought controversy to Dr. Laura.

Dr. Laura came under fire for her comments about women's responsibility when it comes to cheating men. In essence, she says that women who treat their men right by making them feel like they are loved, needed, the hero, etc. will have husbands who won't cheat because they are getting everything they need in their relationship.

Dr. Laura Interview

Questions:

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

No. For the very simple reason that no one is responsible for the actions of another person. All adult human beings, lest they be mentally ill bear the sole responsibility for their own actions. For example, the only way my girl friend could be responsible for my infidelity would be if she put a gun to my head and forced me to do it, and then, it wouldn't be an action of my own volition.

(I've never been unfaithful though, so I may be slightly biased against people who have)

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

Dr. Laura, as usual, is full of crap and irrelevant.

She also tells women to identify themselves as "the mother of my children, thus losing their identity.

Dr. Laura's theories emasculate women.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

Man, what a tough question! I have been married now three times, so gawd forbid me giving advice on marriage I suppose

That being said- I have been a marriage and family counsler, for the military mostly, but nevertheless, I am trained in the field.

Basically, I would take her to task for her generalizations of something that has far more variables than she wants to lay out here.

Depends on the marriage, that is for sure. The couple that get married just because she got pregnant- well, there is a whole other dynamic here I believe.

I also have seen, though anecdotal, but I have seen a pretty hard trend in powerful men a grouping of certain pychosis, neurosis, or whatever you want to call it, that makes them over-achievers in the first place- the most common being transference- I see this mostly among white, conservative, christian, males. Not trying to generalize all of this group- I am describing my experiances here, mmmkay?

Basically, it is the Jimmy Swaggart thing- they can't control thier own out of control fantasies so they project thier short comings on to thier career path.

I would say Spitzer is in that group- a brilliant, driven, flawed man, that over-achieves in the area of prosecutor due to his zeal to punish part of what he hates in himself. But he is still flawed and can't come to terms with his public and private life.


Then you have the dynamic which Dr Laura describes, which, well, unfortunate in US society, is not that all uncommon. It is part of our pop culture today to glorify women and to denigrate men. Men tend to form pretty tight bonds with other men, and it seems to be based on a loyalty and a very different dynamic than what women form tight friendship bonds over.

An overbearing woman, who is "always right" and acts like her husbands needs are either worthless or base, and tends to let him know about it regularly, you betchya- that man will cheat, and usually, not be too circumspect about it- that way he IS found out, and she either has to live with it or divorce him, and, in many cases, the woman has painted herself into a corner on this one.

I see it as a cultural problem overall- instead of valuing men and women equally- the woman is paramount in the dynamics of the relationship, who has all the controls, all the needs, and all the power legally in the relationship. There are very few avenues of escape from a cold or emotionally dead or abusive relationship for a man, unlike a woman.

A man can't win in divorce court, unless he pretty much is willing to bet everything he has on winning, and then be okay with losing it all anyway. There is no way for a woman to lose in divorce court.

If a man cheats, it is basically grounds for a divorce, and she will get more sympathy from a judge in the proceedings, if a woman cheats- it is no big deal in court, and wont' even play into the child custody arrangements- unlike if a man cheats.

So, in a dysfunctional or even cool (as opposed to cold) relationship, the man really has no "out" without personal ruin. So, the only way to strike back or to even gain some sort of satisfaction in sexual and other arenas, is to cheat, either by the way of Spitzer or "the other woman".

I would hazard to say, that most of the time, Laura is indeed right. When men feel that thier woman doesn't love them, which they DO connect to sexual frequency, and thier woman is overbearing and cold- you can just about guaruntee an affair,

however, if a woman is very active in loving her man, and warms towards him, and supports him in whatever he is trying to accomplish (and this goes both ways, of course )- chances are, there will be very few "bumps" on the road to marital bliss, at the very least- no 'ATOM BOMBS" dropped on the relationship, that could lead to break up.

Our society is very, very anti-male, and it is really starting to have a profound impact on our relationships as well, as men are starting to develope more and more passive agressive defense mechanisms- similar to case studies I read about in the 50s affecting women and relationships.

Dr Laura is not completely right on this one- but she isn't completely wrong either, and may be more right than wrong in many cases.

I think what we are seeing, more and more, is the era of the "single mom" coming to fruition.

Mom has son with Dad. Mom leaves Dad because she "doesn't love him anymore" (no other reason given many times, except for the next 10-20 years, she tells son why father was worthless) - Mom raises son. Mom can't replace Dad's influence on how to treat women, self discipline, taught "men are always wrong, women are always right" (this is often placed as a "joke"- dont' tell me you have n't heard them ) - boys, growing up to be men, search for woman like mama- just like Daughters tend to look towards things they want in a husband at thier favorite male role model- and ends up with the superiority/inferriority complex that his Mom has taught him to have- so, the cycle continues.

America has some really nutso neurotic societal problems, and this is just touching the iceberg in a very complex societal problem.



I never cheated either- I just dumped the biotch instead of dealing with her crap and another woman's crap - so I hear what you are saying- but, once again, sitting in front of so many couples, I am not as hard nosed about it as I used to be.



Yes, Bof, though I understand that- US society emasculate's men- and this is one symptom of a dysfunctional power play- where one person in the relationship is the "winner" and one is the "loser"-

Also - it is fairly unique to our society in western civilization that the mother is not the most prestigous of roles either- something I think is not good for us either-

it is too bad that the 'mother of my children" is NOT a more prestigious role than a lawyer, CEO or politician- it is a role that mother's , and father's, should be quite proud of being identified as- in fact, If no one identified me as anything more than the "father of my children"- considering the pride I hold in my children- I am okay to lose my other "identities" to that much more fulfilling role.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

I voted partially. You never know what your woman will turn into... does she turn into a cheater years down the line? Does she practice trickle down coochie-nomics? Does she use sex as a bargaining tool in the relationship?

I have always found that women who believe "I shouldn't have to have sex with my man to keep him faithful" were, to put it bluntly... dumb. If sex is not so important, so essential, to a relationship that it musn't be done with any frequency, then you can't turn around and say sex is important all of sudden when a member of the relationship steps out and finds another partner...

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

At the same time, you have women that take care of the husbands physical and emotional needs, so you can't blame her if she just isn't enough.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat?
Nope. We are responsible for what we do of our own free will. I'll never understand why men and women don't ask for a divorce first if it's so bad you're tempted, really tempted, to warm someone else's bed. Or, if it isn't that bad yet, get counseling first. Why do we settle for being miserable? At least alone you have a chance to find someone new without baggage from an existing relationship.

I posted about this on my blog last night, so indulge me while I copy/paste. This is what Schlessinger said:

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. [...] The cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving. But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.

And this is my response:

First off, I don't know how Schlessinger knows Silda did not follow her quaint prescription for an adultery-safe marriage.

Secondly, why should I have to make my partner feel like a man? I always assume I date and/or settle down with a man who was a man before we hooked up. I never bought into our culture's romanticized idea that we complete one another. This persistent myth is utter [explicative] and probably partly responsible for thousands of failed relationships.

If you're not whole without me, I don't want anything to do with you. I'm not a flat tire sealant. And if I'm the one in the relationship needing a sealant and you decide to stick around you're an idiot—albeit an idiot who is probably worthy of sympathy because love, not just lust, can impair our judgment.

Thirdly, I compliment Robert when he solves programming problems not because he has a purple-headed yogurt slinger, but because that's what you should do for your significant other. Period. I expect him to reciprocate when I feel particularly proud of myself.

And finally, well, this is more of a question. Would Dr. Laura blame husbands for cheating wives? If yes, how should a man go about making a woman feel like a woman?

On second thought, I don't want to know.

Schlessinger should hook up with the Cat Meat Sheik and brainstorm more anti-social male behavior to pin on women.

Sex is important. Good sex is very important. Sex is important for women because if we are sexually happy we probably will do whatever you ask. She-happy + He happy=Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy.
Obviously relationships are more complicated than that, but sometime--much of the time--not really.
Men are simple to keep happy and we do not like complications--we have other plans and hobbies and never enough free time anyways.

Some people, male and female, are however never sated with anything and have egos that inspired the Greeks to coin a phrase about power and corruption.
I have found though, that you knew they were actually like that and either tried to ignore it and live in imagined bliss or were STUPID enough to expect them to change somehow.
We should all breathe a sigh of relief that Elliot Spitzer is dead politically. Person like that eventually designates an office of bureaucrats to keep the trains running on time.

Point of order here- yes, your spouse does have not only profound impact on your behavior, they can indeed "make" you behave a certain way- I dont' care who you are- you are not immune- and if you are immune- you are in a very one sided or dysfunctional relationship.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

I voted not at all, but I was torn between that and "partially". The thing that swung me to "not at all" is the word "ultimately" in the sentence.

The ONLY person who is ultimately responsible for anything they ever do or say (by commission or omission or - to crowbar in a weak gag here that's vaguely relevant to the subject matter - emission :woot:) is the person doing or saying it.

Sure, there might be circumstances that explain what made them do it - CruisingRam has given many of them - and the weight and import of those circumstances might be enough for an unbiased observer to think "well, I wouldn't normally agree, but in those circumstances I don't know if I might not have done the same thing".

But even if circumstances - be it a domineering and sexually distant wife, or a girlfriend with a gun to your head - do make the decision far easier to make in the direction of infidelity than anything else, that's still a decision to make and you can either make it on the basis of what's easiest to live with under the circumstances, or on the basis of sticking to a principle you hold dear that will cost you a great deal - up to and including your life, if your girlfriend really wants to pull the trigger if you don't have sex with a third party there and then.*

edited to add Or, you can just do what you always wanted anyway then blame the circumstances to make yourself look less bad.

Doing the wrong thing for understandable reasons is still doing the wrong thing. In law, it's the punishment that is applied that varies (or should vary) depending on the mitigating circumstances. That's a good principle to expect to be applied to you in response to legal actions that someone else might not like.




I'm going to win this week's prize for ultra pickiness, but "emasculate" means to rob of masculinity (or power derived from it, in more modern usage). It used to be a common synonym for castrate. While modern usage has softened it, it is still a strongly gendered word, so emasculating women is quite and odd concept. Blame the inherent sexism of the English language for associating the ownership of power with the ownership of testicles, if you like.

Good point Jules. This could be added to the More Grammar Pedantry thread, one of my favorites.

I was using the term "emasculate" in accordance with the first definition given in The New Oxford American Dictionary:


I haven't heard Dr. Laura in a long while, but it seems to me she wishes for women to live vicariously through their husbands and children. I would not want to be attached to a woman who did this. By coincidence the word "emancipate" is in close proximity to the word "emasculate" in the dictionary.

As preface, C-Ram articulates quite well the dynamic between husband and wife. I happen to agree with Dr. L 90+ percent of the time. My issue with her (and it is a big one) lies in how she communicates this to her listeners. I do not care for the ascerbic way in which she directs others.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

For clarification, Dr. L did not say "ultimately" responsible nor do I beleive there is a solid enough case that she even implied this. D-Planet has inserted this term on her own thereby skewing the conversation in a direction that should not be contemplated (i.e., no one (Dr. L included) is suggesting that women are ultimately responsible for any action a man takes).

The question should involve whether a wife bears any responsibility in securing a healthy enough relationship with her husband. If the wife's goal is a lifetime of growth with her mate then indeed she does bear some responsibility in the matter. This of course is just as true for the man. In the case of Gov. Spitzer and countless others however, it is his "ultimate" responsibility to control his own actions. His wife makes it easier or harder for him to make that decision but it is his to make nonetheless.

I can see how one could think that a woman is "partially" to blame.

While no one is responsible for someone else's actions, certainly there are plenty of women out there who have said to their husbands, "Hey, I've had the kids and now the time for sex is over." Or, in the example of a friend of mine whose wife admitted to him that she hates sex, always has, and was happiest when he was unable to---err---"perform" for six months due to his being badly injured. But she insists that he cannot meet his needs outside the marriage. She'll do it with him, but she'll be hating it the whole time.

Think about it this way---many men love their wives, and they don't want to leave them just because of a lack of sex, but they do require sex, and therefore will find a way to get that need met. So to suggest divorce instead of cheating...I don't know; I think there's a lot more to it than that.

Another way that women might be semi-responsible is because, as "Dr." Laura says, they don't cherish and love their spouse. Maybe they're overly critical, ball-busting beeyotches...but in that case I would think a divorce would be necessary.

C'mon, ladies...is it that hard to get in the mood once you've started playing around? You'll have the happiest husband in the world if you quit being a prude. But that's off the subject.

Anyway. In other cases, guys usually cheat because they're cheaters, and that's what cheaters do. And THAT is not the responsibility of the wife in any way.

I still hate "Dr." Laura though. She gives me the creeps.

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

No, she's not. In fact, I would say (vide vanguard) that women bear no responsibility for their husbands' infidelities.

Homo sapiens is, by nature, promiscuous - we are not biologically engineered to be monogamous. Many men and women do behave contrary to their physiology, but it is a choice, usually brought about by social pressure - and, for men in particular, it seems to be a choice requiring great effort. Some succeed through sheer force of will, many don't. But no one can make another member of the species behave against their nature - not even someone with a marriage certificate.

What I find idiotic is the premium we, as a society, place on being unnaturally "faithful" - and the fact that the inability of many to deny and subjugate their innate biology is the basis of many ruined relationships. It's a pity that we can't just acknowledge what we are and get on with our lives, our loves, and our families. Chill, you know? Marriage is an artificial construct and monogamy is meaningless.

That said, there's a big difference between infidelity and desertion. If a man or a woman enters into a marriage contract and has started a family, they should honor that obligation. To me, a man leaving his wife for another woman (or a woman leaving her husband for an other man) and failing to contribute to the family is unethical in the extreme. A man or a woman having "a bit on the side" is absolutely to be expected - and we should only be surprised when it doesn't happen.

Laura Schlessinger herself requires no comment - at least, none that would pass the profanity filter.

My earlier comments should be amended somewhat. I don't believe a woman (or man) should bear any responsibility for the actions of another per se. I do believe that to the extent we are speaking of an intimate relationship (the most powerful being between husband and wife though there are many others) the partner does bear some responsbility in assisting in their partner's overall growth - a kind of "spritual" growth if you will. That Mr. Spitzer acted in this way is only a symptom of something that was lacking (i.e., sexual infidelity never happens in a vacuum). To the extent that Mrs. S was capable, she had a responsibility to assist him in his journey toward a more complete spiritual plain.


Much of what you contend may have to be left for another time. Wertz, you seem to be suggesting that as long as Mr. S "contributed" to the family, his having "a bit on the side" should not be an overarching concern for Mrs. S and indeed would reflect a deficit in her character were it to be an issue? Am I correct in this? That being the case, we part company in ways that I fear can never be reconciled.


She would probably be quite displeased to hear you use profanity anyway!

I answered "partially" because, while I do believe that women bear no responsibility for their husbands' behavior, the horror that we, as society, display to such behavior goes totally against statistics that show that almost half of us will do just that during our lifetime:



Another link to infidelity statistics

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

I hardly know how to give my opinion on this subject! The fact that Dr. L. ventured to even suggest such an outrage gives me pause, I must say. It’s the “victim” mentality again! Why do we always feel the need to let the perpetrator off the hook? Yes, let’s blame his wife - what a great idea. Hogwash, Hogwash, Hogwash! Dr. L. can take her ideas and the horse they rode in on! Nobody is forced into marriage vows against his/her will in the first place! Commitment is
everything and if we don’t feel we can hold up the faithfulness part of the commitment, why don’t do it for heaven’s sakes. Live together or make some other choice. BUT let’s not let the unfaithful spouse off the hook by blaming the violated one! Get a divorce if sleeping around is your choice. I very seldom agree with anything Dr. L. utters, even if I could stand to listen to the sound of her voice anymore, which I can’t! Ugh, deliver me from ever blaming my spouse for my own raunchy, irresponsible, unfaithful behavior!

You are not correct that I would consider it a deficit in one's character to make an issue of infidelity. The whole notion of monogamy has become too deeply ingrained in our society for it not to still be an issue with many couples. I'm just saying that no one should be surprised when human beings act like human beings - and that it's a pity that natural human behavior leads to so much unhappiness among couples or within families because we've allowed monogamy to become the model for our sexual relationships.


Really? I hear she has a mouth that would make a longshoreman blush.

Well, true that Wertz- in fact, it is quite true that America is pretty much NOT a monogamous nation- we are serial polygamists- most American's have more than one marriage in thier life.

That being said- I think you take it a bit far bro- product of your social and cultural experiances as well. Not everyone really lusts after anyone else, and some are pretty comfortable living and sleeping with just one person. I know I am - I have been a slut in my time, sure. - but I settled down and was pretty okay with monogamy. Never have "cheated" in my life. Haven't been in an open relationship either.

I do find it rather, um, odd or something- that people here absolve wives over thier husbands behaviors and vice versa.

I hate to tell you this- but we are social animals, and yes, to some degree, others around us trigger certain behaviors and defense mechanisms- it is as natural as the "animal" behavior Wertz has pointed out- if not even more "human" in our black little hearts.

What I am saying is this- to a great degree, yes, a wife or husband "forces" your behaviors. Don't think so? go ahead and step out of the usual behaviors both of you and your SO have, say, sleeping on one side of the bed, taking out the trash, or some other accepted behavior you and your SO have worked out over time.

Instant conflict- and soon after- you will be "forced" into a new set of behaviors- try it for yourself.

Society, your spouse, and others DO "force" you into certain behaviors- that is why public speaking is the greatest fear- so strong, in fact, that some people will fight tooth and nail not to be 'forced" on to stage or into the public eye.

Ya, to a great degree, the relationship dynamic, whatever it is, does set people in motion to certain behaviors.

The certainty of divorce of the "sexless" spouse, vs the "maybe I won't get caught" and the lessor consequences of NOT getting caught, frequently allow the spouse to do a cost-benefit analysis and sneak out.

But hey, at least the dude was sleeping with high priced hookers and not trying to pick up anonymous sex partners in public airport bathroom stalls.

You don't know what went on any more than CR does. You don't know if anything was lacking and CR doesn't know if Spitzer was exorcising his own demons in public life. Neither of you need to know why this man hired prostitutes, however, to support your own ideas of why people commit adultary. Why Spitzer cheated is beside the point, isn't it?


It's too bad women haven't caught up to men in cheating. Would it be premature to say chop-chop, make us stop cheating?


I never thought of my roommates as significant others capable of running my personal life, but since you put it this way...

You are correct in saying I do not know the specifics that went on though I never suggested that I did. The fact that Mr. S lacked something does not suggest that it had anything to do with his wife. Many adult folks bring significant baggage from the family of origin into their adult relationships. Despite the spouse's best attempts many of these "lacking" adults persist in their dysfunction. That he was driven away from the ideal of fidelity may or may not have had something to do with Mrs. S.

Why Spitzer cheated is germaine to the thread. The intent of the question was to explore whether his wife bore any responsibility to his cheating ways. I have already explained my thoughts on that. Though I cannot determine Mrs. S's role in this I do contend that it is possible she did not operate according to her capacity in securing a viable relationship.

Hey there, vanguard, why are you persisting in blaming the person who is the VICTIM here = Mrs. S. not Mr. S! Mr. S. has literally shown us that he has no character, is not honest nor is he forthright and responsible. If one of the partners in a marriage becomes ill and incapacitated for instance does this mean the
other has free rein? Mr. S. is a hypocritical creep who will be incredibly lucky if he still has a marriage and family at the end of this mess. I will repeat what I said above = if he can't hold his act together as the state law enforcement officer, husband and father, GET A DIVORCE! I'm sure he has a mother and I feel very sorry for her along with his wife and children. None of them deserve what he has done to them! Mr. S. showed no humility even when he was apologizing to the State of New York!

Whoa, let's steady this ship. No one (at least not I) has said anything about blaming Mrs. S as you suggest. Be careful not to play that "victim" card too much though - we do not yet know the circumstances that contributed to his decision to be unfaithful. Can you fathom scenarios where you would conclude she was every bit the "creep" that he was? My bets are she knew of his philandering ways but made the decision to tolerate it - certainly not a recipe for a successful marriage. This idea of the identified patient (Mr. S) and the enabler (Mrs. S) is not a new one. Though he made the grave mistake of betraying her trust she is every bit as unhealthy as he.

I largely agree with Ottimista. I think if you suggest a wife bears some kind of responsibility for the actions of her husband then you have to ask to what degreee is a husband the architect of his own actions? What your essentially suggesting is that a wife who cannot follow her spouse across his sexual boundries is responsible when he does. Thats just wrong. If a person feels a need to cheat, then they alone are the ones cheating. Thats why we call it being unfaithful. Its no good trying to blame the spouse by claiming they were 'boring in bed', or 'they started it'. If you are so dissatisfied with your partner then why are you with them?

If the answer is children, then I'm afraid you are an even bigger hypocrite than you are a liar, for children are not a crutch to be used to prop up a dysfunctional relationship.

If you feel you need to be sexually active with people outside your relationship, marriage or what ever, then you should make this clear to your partner and let them decide whether or not they will accept an open relationship. If you don't do this then any axtra marrital sexual adventures you have, are at the expense of your relationship with the person you have chosen to be with.

If they say yes to an open relationship, then party on. If they say no, then you must decide for yourself which is more important to you. Getting laid, or treating your partner with respect. At no point is your sexual infidelity your partners responsibility however.

That's a nice contradiction. The intent of the debate question was to explore whether a woman is responsible for her man's cheating. Schlessinger was speaking of the Spitzers when she made guess about the cause for Eliot's cheating and so have you and CR. You're taking a shot in the dark. You're speaking about a specific incident, a specific marriage. I think a local tabloid would have a better idea why Eliot cheated.

Neither does Dr. Laura know nor is she qualified to know.


http://www.ralphmag.org/dr-lauraZA.html

Is Dr. Laura right when she says that a woman is ultimately responsible for her man's decision to cheat? Why or why not?

She probably has some precentage of it right. Broad generalities like this are usually way off base, so keep that in mind.

And then there's the cheating of hiring pro help and that of starting a separate relationship. The second kind would probably be a lot harder to take than the first kind if there's any feeling left.

Also, and I'm not the only one to notice this, men in a relationship are attractive to some kinds of women. I figure it's a signal that you're safe, as in not a psycho. Or maybe that you're committed so there's no expectations. Or something. I can recognize it but I don't understand it. Seems more common in the 20-30 age range.

One last observation: You can hire a hooker to help you get off on sex. You can't hire a hooker, or anyone else for that matter, to love you.

I would also be hazarding a guess, no different than Ottista or yourself Lesley- if we said that Mrs S had no influence over this decision to "cheat" or whatever- oh, and lesly- is it okay to maim women for cheating too? After all, they seem to be nearly over-achieving at the same rate?

Maybe I should take a needle and fishing line and sew up my spouses sex organs for her cheating? Would this be appropriate as your "chop chop" on the males?

typically, in a marriage counsellng session dealing with spousal infidelity in my field- it is the woman who cheats- as i am dealing with soldiers, and they seem not to have the opportunity while getting shot at in Iraq like thier cheating wives do. - in fact, I would go so far as to say the cheating soldiers wives are far worse people than Spitzer, by a mile.

Correct? Should we be able to maim them then, since that seems to be okay with so many females in conversation about infidelity- I will cut his___ off if he cheats on me"- yet the outrage when a man pulverizes the woman for the same behavior- oh my, what a monster he is~!

Anyway- we have a saying in the counselling sessions "Sex is no reason to get married OR divorced"- mistakes happen. There are a large variety of reasons why these mistakes happen- and beieve it or not, many marriages survive this and go on as a functional and happy marriage- believe it or not- though, not so much with the soldiers wives, simply because of the level of betrayal that usually happens here- he is writing letters to his dear wife, while hunkered down trying not to get killed, while she is partying at the club and getting the "hook up" here and there.

I see it far too often.

Another possibility not explored- what if Mrs S were okay with it? What if they had an open relationship? Maybe they were kinky little swingers? Happens all the time too- but many times, the man will "take the fall" for the woman, so only one of them gets dinged for the kink- happens WAY more often than you think too.

There is so much hidden stuff couples do, and unfortunately- as Wertz pointed out, those public types can't engage in behaviors, even as a couple, without losing thier job.

I happen to know for a fact there is a HUGE industry in call girls that specialize in "couples".

A prostitute, well, they are no worse or better than any other proffession, and I know a great deal many, or have come into contact with, without using thier "services" - throughout my years in this biz.

You would be suprised to find out how many women (and men) love thier job as middle to top end prostitutes. They are horndogs, and love sex, and get paid to do it.

America has a very, very bad history with sexual issues, and we oppress natural and even healthy sexual attitudes.

Take polygamy for instance- or even polyamory- these exist in numbers I had no idea of until I started counselling- the most common being the "triad" - two bi males and one female. Slightly more rare- two females and one male.

They are happy in thier relationships, quite often, and the conflict is with society, not with each other- very sad.

We do not know what the dynamic of the spitzers relationship- the only bad part, was that he was prosecuting people for the very thing he was engaged in.

It is Ottimista and Lesly and I haven't presumed to know why Eliot Spitzer cheated. I took Dr. Love Laura to task to presuming to know what she's talking about.

Sure. If you wanna "maim" women for their husbands' cheating, it only makes sense to "maim" men for their wives' cheating. Knock yourself out. I'll stand clear while you and Vanguard blame spouse X for spouse Y's infidelity.


Maim the soldiers in Iraq? Absolutely! After all, if they hadn't signed up for the damn war their wives wouldn't be so lonely and have to resort to extramarital affairs!

Harrumph. The nerve of these military husbands.

Fair enough - this conversation is better served in focusing on the general population rather than on the particulars of the Spitzers though Mr. & Mrs. S are a subset of that general population making this exchange relevant to their situation also. Once again, I do not know the particulars of the Spitzers' case - only that their dynamic in many ways is probably no different than millions of others. This does not however resolve the bigger issue of whether or not a spouse does play a role in whether their mate cheats or not. I claim the spouse does have a role and, assuming they are committed to promoting the overall growth of their mate, a stewardship toward making that so.

OF COURSE, no one can literally control the actions of another. The science of physics would dictate that to be the case. No argument there. Legally, spouses in Mrs. S's situation are the legitimately agrieved party. OK, that's great. No argument there either. So I guess we don't have much more to say about the situation? Based on that frame, the principles of physics and the law have already answered the OP's question. Leaving it at that leaves much to be desired though. There are some on this forum who get that there is much more to be said and there are others who believe their high school physcial science textbook has the answer.

1) you brought up the "chop chop" - not I. You seem to be all for maiming men, but not women that cheat. I think humans are flawed, and make mistakes, and sex is niether a reason to get married or divorce, there are other reasons people cheat too. You suggested maiming- not myself. I just asked if you were consistant on your application of guilt when cheating, is it just husbands you think should be castrated and such- or do women get a "pass" when they cheat? I can tell you one thing- in court, the way a man is treated in court for cheating is far different than the woman is treated. A man is held to a higher standard, big time.

2) Speculating as to "who's fault it is"- well, everyone on this subject is doing just that, no? Including yourself? I neither absolve the wife of guilt nor do I blame her- because I don't know what they got goin' on. Could be swingers for all I know, and he is simply protecting his wife from the press getting ahold of the sordid details. I have seen it done in the work place, much less the public media type busts.


Moif- we don't even know if he had consent from his wife- for all we know- she could be the one demanding him to go there instead of thier bedroom- ya just don't know until you get both of them in a conversation based on confidentiality.

Many marriages have some kind of truce over sex, because they still love each other and don't want to seperate, but have completely different sexual needs- and the REAL issue is getting caught doing it- one or the other's main job is to not get caught by anyone outside the family.

What we have here is a gang-bang moment. No one ever told you chop-chop to make you hurry?


I'm only speculating based on what I know. I know Eliot Spitzer cheated on his wife. I blame him for his own actions. Had Silda hired a prostitute, I'd blame her for her actions.

But you don't even know he was cheating- correct? If it were consensual between him and his wife- is it still cheating? We don't even know if they had an "arrangement"- or if it was thier way of "spicing things up"- that is my point- we just don't know the dynamics enough to even blame him, much less her.

The reason he needed to lose his job is the conflict of interest- NOT the actual, or imagined- cheating.

Oh, and being a biotch = the other thing too. I work with the salt of the earth, both in my current proffesion and the new one I am studying for- so I hear all of the midol-vagina cut downs you can imagine. And that is just from the women. the men usually show more decorum.



Perhaps so- but meaning is in context- I didn't take it to mean "stop cheating now" as much as "let's maim him so he won't do it anymore".

There are lots of wierdness, compared to whatever relationship you are in, outside of what society calls "normal" and what is truly "normal", and some pretty hard myths here- such as no one can "make" you do anything. Emotional and psychological abuse can "make" you do things quicker than any physical torture. I have seen it too many times.

You would be very, very suprised at what a loved one can "make" you do for thier love.

That's a possibility. But she looked more than indifferent at the first news conference.


As far as I'm concerned, no.


We know enough that he cheated. Should we assume he paid "Kristen" five grand for a kiss on the cheek (the one by his nose)?


The context was: While we're blaming wives for cheating husbands, hurry up and stop making your wives cheat, you slacking husbands! Quite frankly the idea of you counseling couples is disturbing.


Yeah, I stopped being surprised at myself in elementary school when I stopped thinking the world of little boys. I've gone against the advice of my family time and again. I wouldn't agree to something I don't believe in just because the person doing the asking gives me orgasms.

This sounds cold but I don't think men are worth failing to stay true to myself. I knew my first and only marriage was going to end and I asked for a divorce upfront because I knew I was going to cheat on him. My ex didn't have to like me for it, but if nothing else he could respect my honesty. I could have boinked guys while he thought the relationship was more or less stable and used a dozens reasons/excuses (one of which would make him look like a major league [explicative] to quote Bush) for my behavior.

Actually Lesley- compromise is the key to a relationship- staying true to yourself means you probably really need to be single- it takes quite a bit of compromise to make a marriage work- and still they often don't work anyway. There are so many stats on so many relationship issues- for instance, they talk about "low level conflict" (defined as something other than a daily knock-down drag out verbal altercation between spouses) and how those that stayed together and eventually mended thier relationship appear to be overall happier people and thier kids are much better off (giving lie to the idea "it is better for the kids if we just break up) and so on-

I dont' even pretend to know enough to be an expert in this field- as a sociologist would say- crowds are predictible, and a psychologist retorts- individuals are anything but predictable.

But, overall, succesful relationships, meaning life long ones that end only with the (non-homicide ) death of a spouse- compromises are worked out very early, and the 'stay true to yourself" gives some way to "stay true to each other"- and, you seem to be happy in your non-marital status, me, I just fell right back into another relationship, then marriage. I like to think I was a bit smarter about it this time, but I thought I was last time too- but, studies also show, we emulate our parent's relationship behaviors. My mom was married three times, and the last time, it worked. I am hoping the same for myself.

Counselling is NOT an internet debate Lesley- it is mostly just listening and reflecting back what the couples are saying to each other to facilitate them in solving thier differences. Many times, it is also good for the counseler's personal life, sometimes it is not.

I really enjoyed marital counselling for soldiers at first- but the cost of the war and the damage I have seen it do to families and soldiers just burnt me out. It wasn't the cheating spouses, the betrayals, or anything else- it is not very hard to retain your profesionalism in that arena if you are able to keep your composure when doing pyche testing on pedophiles and having to see disgusting evidence of these things- relationship counselling, after that, is a cake walk, and pretty fulfilling really- like I said, I enjoyed it until I started to get burnt out from the bad things I see that were external to the relationships, and started to internalize this stuff myself, and a good counseller knows when to say WHEN.


With Mrs S- like I said, we don't know- that look could have been just embarrasment at her husband being caught- NOT her embarrasment over the actual act- I have seen that more times than the other way.

Quite frankly, unless the relationship is VERY one sided- you CAN'T be 'true to yourself" and be in a relationship- too much personal compromise is neccesary for a successful relationship Lesly.

I don't judge you as 'bad" because you left your husband, or "good" for being "true to yourself"- I just see a recipe for a failed marriage.

I don't take sides in counselling either- since I am a counseler, NOT a therapist- I don't really even offer advice for relationships- lord knows I don't value my own advice in this matter, having two failed marriages under my belt.

You will be amazed at how many of these relationships DON'T fail- and, with counseling, there is a chance that this one won't fail either.

In the global scale of the "cheat-o-meter" there seems to be less sense of betrayal by the injured spouse when it is a 'high priced call girl" (meaning alot less money than this dude spent- I mean, damn, I don't counsel the rich I guess? ) - but anyway- the "we just fell in love, it just happened, I didn't mean it to, I will break it off immediately, I am sorry" type cheating seems to be less hope of recovery than " I spent lots of money on hookers and cocaine" type excuse- believe it or not.

First one is a betrayal of love, the second, from the spouses point of view, in my experiance, seems to be a 'crime" of weakness of the body. Women and men seem to forgive one another easier if it also involved a drug and alcohol problem.

Don't ask me why- haven't experianced it from either side myself.

Unless I am the one counselling them, and know the details from either of them- I won't judge either of them in that area- my beef is his conflict of interest and public trust.

But Dr L is also not completely wrong- I have seen many times the cold, controlling, non-sexual wife pretty much force a man into a corner. I have seen it the other way too- no gender has a "lock" on this behavior- though men tend to use physical bullying, women, emotional-psychological-guilt type bullying.

Responsibility has been bandied about a little in this thread. How about personal integrity?

Personal integrity says that even though my spouse might be acting like a jerk, I made a promise, and because of that promise to myself as well as to my spouse and witnesses at the wedding (and to God if you believe in one), I am not going to ruin my own character for the sake of sexual pleasure outside of the marriage.

It seems to me that there are a lot of "yeah buts" in the argument that your spouse can "make" you cheat on him/her. I think it was Jules who said something about the idea of poor conditions in a marriage providing a handy excuse for someone who wants to cheat anyway.

The upshot of it is, if you make a promise to be faithful, you should keep that promise. It is not predicated on what your spouse does. If you make the promise under duress, that's another story. But for a couple who wish to pledge their love and fidelity to each other in a marriage ceremony, it should not be negated if "the thrill is gone," or there is some pretty/sweet young thing who captures the attention of the husband or wife.

I think that Dr. Laura Schlesinger got paid handsomely for pontificating on the wife's responsibility in a marriage, but quite frankly, I can hear the same thing in any male-dominated fundamentalist church in the country where men are the "cocks of the walk" and the women are supposed to be the drab little brown hens who raise their young and keep the home fires burning regardless of what trouble these roosters get into while they're at it. I had my fill of that religious environment when I was in my twenties.

Each individual must make his/her own decisions and be willing to stand by them. Otherwise, why engage in foolishness that can wreck one's marriage and/or career? It's best not to make "lifetime" promises if either of the parties has an inkling that s/he cannot keep them.

Aside from that, sometimes the wronged spouse can choose to forgive the one who did the wrong. This is a wonderful thing when it works. Willingness to forgive is a very important factor in any relationship, but so is keeping promises, even when it hurts. I'm not saying that Mrs. Spitzer should just do anything, but it seems to me that she was wronged in a very public and hurtful way.

Dr. Laura is a moron. Let's get the obvious out of the way first.

I suppose there can be some rationalizations a man can make to put the blame on his wife for his indiscretions.

"She always has a headache."

"She says the kind of sex I want is perverted."

"She won't give me sex when I need it."

"She bores me in bed."

"Did I mention she always has a headache?"

At the end of the day (and the beginning of the night) a man can always find a reason to look outside the marriage for his physical pleasures. It helps if he can blame his spouse for being a dud between the sheets, but it absolves the husband too much to put all the weight on the shoulders of the wife.

Chris Rock nailed it when he said, "A man is only as faithful as his options." Ex-governor Spitzer had a lot of options and chasing skirts outside of his marriage wasn't something he was casual about. This horndog was meticulous in his cheating. He was dedicated to it and had absolutely no shame or remorse about it.

Blaming the woman is a game for misogynists and Dr. Laura proves you don't have to be a man to hate women.

Lesly

What is the point in marriage, or any romantic relaationship where monogamy is of any importance in your mind. The way you sound to me is.. a woman is solely responsible for her action a man is solely responsible for his actions. Humans are only responsible for themselves.

But if this is the case... then a marriage is to separate to be meaningful. If what you do wouldn't affect you significant other and vice-versa, then it doesn't sound like there is much love or respect in that relationship. It sounds like two roommates rather than a husband and wife.

Another thing, that few men admit, but I believe is more true than not. Women do make you feel manly. When you go to your significant other and you are rejected it does hurt, and it does emotionally starve a person. This goes either way, not necessarily just the Husband being rejected.

NT


Why does it have to be "either or". I think it funny how in that clip Dr Laura had to tell the other women the same thing... "no one is blaming any one"

If I tell you that "Hey, you put your hand over fire, it may burn you." Does that mean I'm blaming every burn victim ever burned?? Dr Laura is saying what should be common sense to any person.

As Wertz points out, and I agree, as mammals there already is a natural desire to seek out new sexual partners that we must control. So it's not like monogamy is natural. Now you throw into the equation a significant other, who physically, thereby emotionally starve their spouse.

I think Dr. Laura would say that this issue goes both ways, but let's face a woman is more apt to withhold sex from their husband. That's why when looking in playboy I see jokes like.

"What kind of Dessert kills a woman's sex drive?? Wedding Cake."

Because though I have met a man or two that say they don't be feeling like having sex with their mate....It's been just that a man or two... and a lot more are willing to complain that they can't get enough.

To sum it up... you're not blaming anyone by stating that, if you hold out, don't be surprised they go else where. And my opinion is the woman like Silda who stay around know deep down that there husbands are fulfilling their fantasies with other women because they(the wives) had no intentions of fullfilling those fantasies themselves.

A husband and wife are also responsible for the state of their marriage, but that doesn't cross over to being responsible for the other person.


Of course your interactions affect other people, Droop. I just don't think, barring mental or emotional problems of your own, they can affect you to the point that the behavior of others gives you an out to act against your beliefs.


I've been rejected and hurt before but I didn't feel less of a woman for it. Maybe less of a sexy woman, but not just a woman. Sometimes your significant other (married or not) hurts you unintentionally. Sometimes it's intentional. If it's the latter you need to have a serious talk. If the problem persists you need to decide if you want to stick around. You're wasting your energy and time on a manipulative jerk, but their cruelty doesn't absolve you of your vows. No one can make you a cheater and a liar. If you took your vows never really believing them, however, this doesn't apply.


Another psychic delving into the Spitzer marriage? This thread is full of surprises.

I voted "Null", because the question is

• too simplistic
• inherently paradoxical. Ultimately and partially can't coexist.

Being a frequent casual listener to Dr. Laura, and knowing the full context of her work and principles, I have to say that her "ultimately" is far more often the case than otherwise, yet, ultimately, "it depends." Some women do bear a great deal of responsibility. A woman who turns into a complete shrew, may drive a man to an affair. If there are children, divorce may simply not be an option because he's unwilling to lose his children. Conversely, some men are simply total schmucks that would cheat on Cinderella. That, however, is not what intrigues me about this thread. What intrigues me is the utter failure of anybody to turn the question around.

What if a wife cheats on her husband, or walks out on the marriage, because he wasn't "meeting her needs"? Much of our culture today is going to give her a pass, if not a high five. There is a bit of a double standard here, perhaps in part as a mirror to the double standard that exists before marriage, where men can behave more irresponsibly than women without social approbation. I'm pretty much with Paladin Elspeth on this one, although she'll be surprised that my perspective is informed by that source so odious to her, "fundamentalist Christian churches." The marriage vow is a covenant, i.e. it does not depend on the behavior of the other party.

Another interesting aspect of this is the desire to make it an "either/or" situation. That one spouse behaves irresponsibly (either by stepping out or making the marriage miserable) does not excuse the other spouse's reactive irresponsibility. That is Dr. Laura's key point. She's not "blaming the victim" (the charge of which usually is followed with an attempt to relieve the victim of any responsiblity whatsoever), she's pointing out the obvious. Bad behavior rarely happens in a vacuum.

Last, BoF's "emasculating women" crack had me laughing, in part because it is so utterly insulting. What would have been far more appropriate would be to say something along the lines of "Dr. Laura's trying to radically masectomize women."

Yeah, that's it. Dr. L's just trying to chop off women's knockers in order to keep them in their place.

ummmm... besides a peice of paper, what else is a marriage besides husband and wife??



No, it doesn't absolve a person of their vows, thus the shame when they are caught. But what it does do is increases the liklihood and the justification for cheating. Of course if you still want to keep your family you lie next.

And that is exactly what Dr Laura is saying... It is not about blame or fault. It's about everyone in a marraige responsible for the others needs. And if you refuse to answer those needs you are responsible for the creation of an unfulfilling marriage. It's no longer about fault at this point. It's about choice. And a spouse that is in a relationship where he /she is missing something, is just as wrong to go outside of the marriage as a person who refuses to answer those needs. And as in any thing is this world there are degrees of severity.



A psychic wouldn't give an opinion... they would state their opinion is a fact.

Something greater than both of them. I don't care for symbolic contracts myself.


That's a recipe for inviting other people to share your miserableness, but that's my opinion.


And if you can't meet the others' needs? If you realize your other half can't meet your needs?


As long as you acknowledge you don't know what went on with the Spitzers... /shrug