Nathan Harden
I finally got around to reading Nathan Harden’s Sex and God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad. Harden was a home-schooled kid whose education sort of petered out. He applied to Yale with his GED and was rejected. After doing a variety of odd jobs, he got into Yale on this third try at the age of 22. (The Admissions Director later told him that he’d simply worn her down.) In love at the time, he married, and the newlyweds set off for New Haven.
Harden’s status as a married undergraduate afforded him the opportunity to observe Yale’s sexual culture objectively. His report of that experience does not approach the quality of William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, his inspiration for the book. He does chronicle a whole new level of radicalism on campus, though, and it’s shocking. I first became aware of Harden when I he blogged for National Review during Yale Sex Week. That series landed him a book deal and here we are.
One of the moments in his story that jumped out at me had nothing to do with the faculty or administration, but with fellow students. Studying abroad, he visited London and crashed on a female classmate’s couch while there.
The next morning I awoke to find myself sprawled out on one of the couches in the living room. Several of the girls who lived in the flat were sitting around talking…they had been out the night before and their conversation, naturally, turned to talk about boys. They started talking about the hookup scene back at Yale. Their conversation went something like this:
- Oh my gosh. Have you ever been with a football player?
- Yeah, they can be pretty awesome. They work out a lot.
- Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.
- Ha-ha! Totally.
These are Yale women – arguably the smartest women in the country, so clueless about sex differences it’s dangerous. I once heard a wise woman say, “No matter how many times women tell themselves they don’t care, they’re still getting fucked.”
Harden agrees:
I was amazed. Could it be possible, I thought to myself, that these girls don’t understand a fundamental fact about the human male? You normally don’t have to trick a man into having sex…Don’t [these girls] realize that’s why most guys show up at college parties in the first place?
…College girls are the special target of today’s radical sexual culture. It is a culture that asks of them everything and offers them nothing. It is presided over by a legion of academics who have been enamored of the sexual revolution ever since the Summer of Love. These academics enjoy calling themselves feminists, but they fail to see that the sexual revolution left many young women feeling powerless.
True, but even more disturbing, the culture leaves many women feeling a false sense of power. Their empowerment only gives them the opportunity to objectify themselves, not males, who rarely mind in any case.
Sexual liberation never really empowered women in the way it was suposed to. A woman is truly objectified when men don’t even have to get to know her in order to get her into bed. Without any commitment to modesty or sexual restraint, the worthy cause of debojectifying women loses much of its gusto. I know it sounds very 1950s, but playing hard to get might not have been a bad idea for feminists, if power is what they were after.
Feminists at the Yale Women’s Center talk about birth control as a form of empowerment…But they never talk about keeping one’s zipper up as a potential form of empowerment…It’s hard to be a randy sexpot and a deobjectified feminist at the same time.
Indeed.
{ 1786 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 »
And Sigma just kind of gives me a weird feeling of confusion.
We have that affect on others.
I’m starting to realize that I probably ruined his feelings for me and opinion of me that night. I very well may have destroyed a relationship that could have worked. I’m at fault for that. I hurt his pride and appeared untrustworthy. He probably hoped that I was as solely taken with him as he had been with me, the night we met. The fact that I showed interest in his friend, despite the fact that we weren’t exclusive by any means, was enough of a reason for him to think less of me.
Don’t beat yourself up over it. You didn’t even know which of them you liked at the time. However, in the future, if you think you have a “funny story” that involves his weaknesses or sex in general, keep it to yourself. Women are absolutely terrible at anticipating what men will or will not find amusing. Unless you’re a comedienne by trade, save the entertainment for your girlfriends. Also, men don’t react well to that little passive-aggressive game women play with each other where they poke each other and attempt to score points at each other’s expense.
I think you’re probably correct and that story is why he nexted you. But it’s not that he thought less of you, just that you were too high a risk for him. Too many guys have had girls cheat on them with their friends, or just had their friends date their exes, to look past that sort of thing. It’s not about insecurity, it’s just too risky for the lower rank friend and too irritating to the higher rank one. Furthermore, it potentially puts the friendship at risk too. Most alphas will decide it’s not worth the jeopardy and go with another option.
Damn. I won’t even attempt to argue with that stat. I’m guilty of it. I’m not married, but I’ve yet to experience sex with someone that has been better than it was with my ex of 1 year. Honestly, I battled with having vivid flashbacks of sex with him while I was with my most recent ex.
Even women who only date alphas can be alpha widows….
I do not look down on religious people because they are religious. It’s just that I happen to know a lot of people who were once “high and mighty” who then became hypocritical.
Given that “all are fallen”, they were theological hypocrites long before they failed to meet their moral standards.
A man who can’t forgive a woman in whom he has a forty year investment probably won’t forgive any faults of mine either. I don’t see how he can move on until he does forgive her.
You can’t forgive the unrepentant. Even God, we are told, can’t manage that one.
I’ve been wondering why VD has written two posts back to back sourcing British tabloids.
I find the British tabloids to be more factually reliable than the flagships of the American media. They just happened to be interesting stories that relate to Game in some fashion, as evidenced by the number of comments both here at at AG. Also, and more importantly, I’m in the final editing phase of a very large novel, so don’t expect much in the way of depth until December.
“You add zero value to any contribution here. You haven’t added an insight or new thought in over three years.”
Again, you don’t get to decide that. What you get to decide concerning this issue is whom you ban and whom you judge to be insightful and valuable according to your personal whim. As long as I’m here, some of your readers may find my contributions valuable, others won’t. You can only speak for yourself, not all of them.
“Obviously, talk of banishment is silly as you have never actually been banned here, as evidenced by your ability to post.”
No it isn’t. You banned me and then changed your mind because apparently you find me useful as a bogeyman to your female readers, as long as my comments are selectively deleted at whim, of course. You’ve banned numerous commenters and declared the mention of many bloggers banned.
Besides, where exactly was I “whining”? What constitutes “whining” in your vocabulary? Does it apply to men and women as well?
Wow, I think some people need to get off the Drama Tree around here.
What I posted earlier is simply my opinion and in no way should it be considered representative of the “female” point of view. There are specific life circumstances that have shaped my perspective and I don’t intend on passing it as the typical “team woman” banter; it would be unfair for me and for other women.
When reading the echos of that story, I didn’t consider whether or not one of them was wrong or right. We are passed that point. The fact is they are a marriage and should focus on moving forward from there. I merely tried to see WHERE the hurt was, not WHY. In my opinion, such revelation is not basis for trashing 40 years of marriage. However, there certainly are OTHER factors that play in the reluctance of the husband to come back. Then again, I’m all for giving him space to think about this situation. One thing I learned from relationships is that we all have different communication and recovery styles so let’s leave it at that.
@ Ted
Your example about the house on the coal mine doesn’t seem really appropriate to this case. What is more important to you: your family or your house? If you had said something about your spouse and kids developing black lung syndrome and dying as a result, it would have made for a compelling case. When the issue is found, you take your family and move to another house, simple as that. Because that is what matters, not the practicalities of losing you home, at least you have each other.
I know some men saw that very troncated account of marital drift as another clear illustration of the “evil” in women, but even I know that in spite of all the bad men around, there are still some very good ones out there. I have learned from my own parents that there are so many sides to a story: the one you tell your neighbors, the one told to kids inside the home and then the one only spouses know in their bedroom. No one can have a clear picture on this letter and on that couple.
One thing I would like to note finally is how tainted some of the reflections here are. That couple married 40 years ago, at a time where being seen kissing two different guys on the cheek in the same month would have warranted the “slut” label. There was more incentive to lie about your status. This is not an excuse or a justification of that woman’s actions, just the state of THEIR marriage market at that time. Today, the norm is quite the opposite, virgins have a hard time getting quality relationships; this is the state of OUR market. And as we all know, people adjust to their market. We should only negotiate on factors we can control for, not on things that are assumed.
Finally, that woman called her husband “the one”. I don’t believe known sluts even subscribe to that concept.
Susan – “But you cannot hate all women and love your wife. You cannot believe all women are evil and believe your wife is good. You cannot believe that women are incapable of loving fully, and claim that your wife loves you fully.”
I disagree. In fact, the quote above is EXACTLY why I accept NAWALT as a legitimate response from women when it comes to some of the issues we discuss. I can fully see that “women in general” may behave in XYZ manner, but SOME individual women do not. Besides, I don’t think I’ve ever said I hated women at all. I did indeed go through a period of time when I wondered if all women were evil, but that was an internal moral dilemma I had to solve.
“This is not about how we treat someone, according to the context of the relationship. You either believe your friend is a good man worthy of trust and love or you do not. If you do, working with him is easy, and you can demonstrate your full affection outside of work. If you do not, you will find a way to work with him as necessary, but will not invest your emotions in him outside of work.”
I’m not sure where you were going here. My point was: I may work with a friend (and it has only happened twice my entire life) and treat him as a subordinate employee without any consideration AT ALL to his status as friend to me. I will still treat him just like the other people working for me, and I’ll expect him to treat me with the same level of respect and authority as everyone else. I will still come down on him hard if he screws up. I don’t pull favors. There is NO PLACE at work for emotions to come into play, and I simply don’t allow it. IF he is not trustworthy, he wouldn’t be my friend in the first place. But trust has nothing to do with getting the job done. I do my job, he does his, all is well.
Also, keep in mind I’ve worked in IT security. I’ve had to order a friend to do work without being able to explain why. If he wanted to test the friendship, he could have pushed the issue, but it would have caused me to lose respect for him. I’ve had jobs where my allegiances to people were outranked by the needs of the company, and in those cases I fully expect my friend to understand and trust me without question. To his credit, this friend never once asked me what was going on because he knew I was not legally able to do so.
There are some parallels with my wife. There are times when I may need her to do something and cannot tell her why. I fully expect her to trust me and not question it. But, the other side of that coin is I would never treat her as a friend BEFORE I treat her as a wife. If one of my friends does something boneheaded, I’d be likely to call them out on it and probably in some smart assed way. I would NOT do the same to my wife. I would tell her what I thought, but I certainly wouldn’t do it in the same manner as I would a male friend. Our relationship is such that what a friend says in jest could be very hurtful, and in that context I look at the order of importance of the roles she fills to determine my course of action. Wife first, friend second, person third, woman fourth. I never get lower down that friend, so the fact that she is a person (and I think people suck) and a woman (and female nature might be bad) doesn’t even come into play. At least until she does something that forces me to look at her from lower down the ranking system. A huge breach of trust would be such an issue that would force me to see her as “people”, and I would then act accordingly.
“So you do understand what a hell on earth it would be if your family and friends became part of an untrustworthy whole.”
Absolutely! Which is why integrity and honesty are so important to me. But, all of my family and friends ARE people, and I do believe that “people” suck most of the time. I see my family and friends as INDIVIDUALS first, THEN I see them as people. As long as their individual contribution goes above and beyond “people”, then there is no issue.
“Rollo doesn’t talk about some women. He speaks of biological realities and female nature. No woman is exempt, by definition.”
I don’t speak for Rollo Susan, and you know I’m not one of his disciples. But even he has written before that an INDIVIDUAL can rise above their base nature, but it takes a good deal of will, morality, and perseverance to succeed. My wife is a woman of course, but she is not JUST a woman. She may come with a whole host of unsavory female behavior in her DNA, but she also has enough self-awareness to overcome those, just as I do with my own. She proves to me every day that she is a worthy INDIVIDUAL, regardless of her female status, and occasionally despite it perhaps.
“For my part, I do not see a complete story. I see a great deal of filling in the blanks. What’s going on in this thread is that men and women are filling in the blanks differently, not arguing over the same (or actual) version of events.”
I can see this. I guess I’m just a bit surprised at how some people are filling in those blanks. I don’t even see the need. The basics of the story tells all to me: She lied. What is the point of trying to figure out the rest?
@Mike C
I do not, but there was a time when I did, as you know. Furthermore, as you know, I receive interesting tidbits and links from readers all the time. My guess is that what I would consider horrendous is something you would consider completely reasonable.
The comment I responded to included an endorsement of the sexiness of Nathan Harden, and an agreement that the women in the OP are clueless. That’s it. I responded by agreeing with her agreement that Nathan Harden is sexy, and by telling a story about being overwhelmed with angry feminist knitters. As for her second comment, it is not my habit to pounce on every commenter I disagree with. It may seem like that to you, but I respond to only about 25% of those. If there is active debate without my input, I often will let it proceed without my interference. I always do try to respond if I am addressed directly.
Two ideas, perhaps, but not two judgments. You have often stated your beliefs on the nature of women in general, as hardwired. The Red Pill. I assume you consider your SO to be a woman wired as all other women are. This is not about environmental conditions – the marketplace. At least not once you invoked Rollo, and he deals in female nature as much as he deals with culture.
LOL, is that straight from the Dark Triad’s mouth?
Here are our respective Alexa rankings (largest web analytics company in the world):
Rational Male
Site’s Global Rank: 245,783
US Rank: 84,691
Audience: Males age 55-64, no children, college educated
Hooking Up Smart
Global Rank: 140,469
US Rank: 50,838
Audience: Females 18-24, no children, some college education
He has zero influence with my audience, and I feel free to disregard him completely. It’s not the unrestricted youth I want to ignore, it’s people like him.
Mike, I’m going to ask you again. Please stop dragging my haters into discussions here. If you want to read Rollo, go read Rollo. If you want to read here, read here. But stop trying to square the circle. It isn’t going to happen, and to be honest, I feel soiled by these conversations. They feel like gossip, and when you start them I feel like I have to set the record straight, but I dislike it very much.
If you start a blog specifically focused on the most controversial social issue imaginable, start online feuds and say detrimental things yourself, be prepared for negative feedback. That’s how it works.
Hollenhund, this is where you are going awry. All blogs have differently defined ranges of acceptable behavior, ranges not defined by their subject matters. The range at HUS is different than it is at AG, which is itself different than VP. Susan has very good reasons for maintaining her limits; rather than complaining that they are not what you consider optimal, reserve your negative feedback for places that seek it out. Different audiences have different tolerances for adversarial conflict and you are too geared up for battle to play nicely here.
Either dial it back considerably or bag it, because those are your options. Blogdom is not about fairness.
you are smarter than that. Explain to me how the last comment from me you quoted above is in ANY way support for team man. I’m acknowledging something I personally believe. It is NOT an approval for male cheating nor a defense for it.
Is my understanding that every time a woman agrees with another woman that some transgression is not really as bad as the other gender paints it, is a direct proof of TEAM WOMAN mentality.You surely have noticed that most men in the sphere share the same ideas about male cheating as you do, so how is not that proof of TEAM MAN mentality at work?
@Hollenhund
Why would I have need of a bogeyman? Not being a fan of gender wars, it’s the last thing I need, and my primary difficulty with you is that you never lay your weapons down. The other, as I’ve already stated, is that you repeat yourself endlessly, usually with remarks that have nothing to do with the OP, but instead focus on the character of other commenters.
Whining does of course apply to either sex. It’s complaining with petulance, which is your MO.
@VD
“Also, men don’t react well to that little passive-aggressive game women play with each other where they poke each other and attempt to score points at each other’s expense.”
No, we don’t. I’ve had numerous occasions where a girl says some
small slight, almost an attempt to perform a neg, to get my attention. It almost always back fires.
A recent example, was a girl who jokingly negated my point, when discussing dating, by saying “cooper, what do you know about being in a couple!?”
It was said intended as good fun, but it was also chosen due to its’ truthfulness. I really think she was expecting me to find the comment hilarious, but I felt quite the opposite.
I think some girls are used to girl-politics, and how a small slights against the other person can represent a “score” as VD put it.
Don’t get me wrong, there is playful, flirtatious verbal jousting that can take place, but far too often it’s not case. I think girls are used to flirtatious teasing, that they sometimes forget that a joke at the expense of the guy is almost certainly not going to bring him closer.
Mireille – “What is more important to you: your family or your house?”
In my example the family WAS the house, or actually the marriage was the structure I supposedly built. So, in that case the house was the most important.
“Because that is what matters, not the practicalities of losing you home, at least you have each other.”
But he never DID have her, because she lied from the get go. She was never truly his wife, because she got that title by deceit. He spent 40 years married to his ideal of his wife, not the real person she was. And after 40 years, I’m sure he felt very betrayed having spent his entire life with a woman he truly didn’t know.
For me, it really doesn’t matter if she was or was not the best wife in the world. She LIED to get there, and that means everything after is null and void. How is this any different than lying on a job application to get hired? I may be a stellar employee, but if I lied about getting a degree, I deserve to be fired. There is no room for debate, and I don’t believe there SHOULD be any debate.
@Hollenhund
A promise I have kept miserably, unfortunately, as these spectres still haunt my blog!
Not true. I haven’t banished you for being boring, I’ve deleted comments that violate my stated comment policy. FTR, banishment means that when you leave a comment here, it goes straight to the spam filter and never sees the light of day. There’s a blacklist for that, and I’ve never used it.
False.
I did not ban Obsidian, I put his comments in moderation after he mercilessly taunted black women for liking white men. He could leave a comment right now if he wanted to, and if it was not of that nature I would allow it. BTW, it’s extremely inconvenient to have readers in mod. I use it rather than banning as a way of allowing people to comment when they follow the guidelines. I judge that comment by comment. It would actually be much easier just to ban people.
I don’t know why you think you should be welcome here when you regularly deride me and HUS on other blogs. You have declared yourself foe rather than friend. This is not a public space, this is my virtual home. Why should I allow you to enter and be nasty to everyone?
@ SW:
It’s getting ridiculous!
I responded right away to what Mike C posted, saying that the wife was wrong and the husband had a right to define his criteria regarding dealbreakers for marriage — yet, TWO pages later we’re still arguing about this crap!
This is way OT! I don’t know why we’re arguing about a post that came from another blog! And this “team woman” and “AWALT” nonsense needs to end.
Ana – “You surely have noticed that most men in the sphere share the same ideas about male cheating as you do, so how is not that proof of TEAM MAN mentality at work?”
LOL easy. Because I am an INDIVIDUAL first, and a man second. My belief about “male cheating” is my own, regardless of how the ‘sphere sees it. I believed it before I found Athol, and I still believe it today. And it is based completely on anecdotal evidence from my life, so I don’t claim any scientific backing on it.
Do people not have the ability to tell the difference between an individual opinion and herd mentality? I’ll concede that written format is less than optimal for subtle communication, but I at least rarily if ever put my .02 into a conversation from the herd viewpoint. If I say something, it is because I believe it, not because someone else TOLD me to believe it.
People defending an obvious liar (whether real or not) are circling the wagons. If not, then I’m forced to believe that as INDIVIDUALS they are OK with lying, which is far worse but perhaps is true. I might be giving people too much credit.
I think he hit a million hits before you or Vox.
Before AG, certainly. Not before VP, which is over 21 million.
Here are our respective Alexa rankings (largest web analytics company in the world)
I’m a little dubious about how reliable those rankings are. According to them, both VP and AG have higher global ranks than HUS (less traffic), and lower US ranks (more traffic). That seems strange since I have a fair amount of extra-US readers, particularly at VP. I do not believe for a second that AG has more US traffic than HUS.
@Hollenhund
I don’t care if outsiders notice. You are free to watch through the window and then run back to your master with a report. I am in no way obligated to “let you in.” You are here by my good graces. It is a privilege, not a right.
For the record, I could care less about the original post/article. I’m taking issue with the responses TO it right here in this thread. Reponses coming from women I tend to think are reasonable, intelligent, and interested in whats good for men AND women. I’m truly surprised by some of the reactions, but mostly the defense of a woman that lied to get married.
I wonder if you all realize how much damage that defense might cause? Here at HUS you find yourself on the defensive against allegations of this EXACT thing happening to “beta providers”. Over and over you say NAWALT and the second a story pops about it, you start defending her?!
What message do you think that sends to men that respect your opinion?
@Ted -
You and Inspector Javert, I guess. After all, Jean Valjean never was an honest man nor a benefactor, nor Cosette’s doting father, just a scoundrel needing additional prison time.
I could find it in my heart to forgive the wife. After all, how many times in this precinct are we advised to pay attention to what a woman does rather than what she says?
Why so serious?
Do people not have the ability to tell the difference between an individual opinion and herd mentality? I’ll concede that written format is less than optimal for subtle communication, but I at least rarily if ever put my .02 into a conversation from the herd viewpoint. If I say something, it is because I believe it, not because someone else TOLD me to believe it.
Team woman accusations are not necessarily because the sphere thinks to that women are told to think certain way by other women but mostly because is in their nature to think certain way about male issues. You are still agreeing with most men. It might be that you mean something different about Team woman definition but the sphere rarely cares where the support came from “personal anecdote vs nature” but that is there and benefit women at the expense of men. Had you notice this is the pattern before?
@Susan
“But you cannot hate all women and love your wife. You cannot believe all women are evil and believe your wife is good. You cannot believe that women are incapable of loving fully, and claim that your wife loves you fully.”
Two separate arguments that counter this, totally unrelated.
1. The lady in the article is not representative of all women. Nor is Miraleile. Its possible to hate individuals and their actions while not holding those actions representative of the entire group.
I hate certain women. I don’t hate all women. Certain women are out to do me wrong and therefore my enemy. The challenge is the sorting process.
2. Men are more capable of compartmentalization. When in the gym in a serious training session I want nothing more then to smash my buddies face into the ground over and over again (hence the mat). He is the enemy.
After the bell rings we laugh about who won/lost and grab a beer.
That entails that we are not in some kind of endless struggle for power. Most good relationships follow this dynamic, from friendship to romantic to professional.
The woman in the article is struggling to maintain hand as evidenced by the lack of remorse/ i’m sorry but… comments. even when wrong. I imagine their relationship was genuinely miserable.
————————————————–
Last,
Mirileliles comment is rude, derogatory, dismissive and as obviously demonstrated inflammatory for a large number of men here.
If we aren’t supposed to do it neither are they.
PS M, your name is ridiculously hard to spell. Also, your subsequent explanation makes me not hate you though I do still think your comment is rude and derogatory it is not an AMALT comment.
MCB – “I could find it in my heart to forgive the wife. After all, how many times in this precinct are we advised to pay attention to what a woman does rather than what she says?”
and what she did is perpetuate a lie for 40 years. THAT is the action I see.
“Why so serious?”
LOL. I’m always serious, even when I’m joking and laughing it up. Serious is a constant routine running in my head. (in the interests of full disclosure the serious routine doesn’t run well with large amounts of liquor) It runs right along side thinking, which I’m always doing about something, unless I’m asleep. And to be honest, I’m not so sure I’m not thinking in my sleep, I just don’t remember any of it.
“I don’t care if outsiders notice.”
Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn’t endlessly complain about “haters”, “bitter MRAs” and other bogeymen appearing in your comment threads, supposedly out of nowhere. Otherwise your female commenters wouldn’t be bringing up the issue of the big, bad manosphere in the same comment threads, even when totally unwarranted. You wouldn’t keep dismissively mentioning bloggers who are banned from coming here and defending themselves. And you wouldn’t be seeking mainstream exposure.
And I have no master, thank you very much.
“I don’t know why you think you should be welcome here when you regularly deride me and HUS on other blogs.”
I never thought that. I do think, though, that some male commenters welcome me here, at least occasionally.
@ Ted D,
I see your point. I also know in light of your previous comments that you somewhat have a very idealistic (unrealistic?) view of certain things. Unfortunately I do not share them.
Where is the truth? What is more valuable? So she lied so he could call her his wife. So she lied so she could be the one to feed him soup when he is sick or do his laundry. There is the lie, and there is considering their 40 years of marriage null and void. This is where I disagree. If people cannot see beyond the details and see the efforts and sacrifices, and real contributions others make in their lives, then humanity is lost for good.
Are the children from that marriage to be considered unfit then? What about all that love and care that was received and given during the marriage, was it all a lie as well?
I agree that the ideal he had is what was shattered. However this is reality we live in. There is good and bad in people and we learn to live with it.
Plus I’m not looking to have my opinion respected, just heard.
@ MCB
What a great illustration you picked in Les Miserables. The world is not black or white.
Ted, I think the lying to get a job example was a good one. It really doesn’t matter how long, or how good, of an employee that person has been. Once they’ve been discovered to have obtained that position through illegitimate mean, the quality of their job would be irrelevant.
I think everyone would agree that most employers would fire the individual first and foremost.
Nonetheless, I agree with Jackie. This article is gender-war troll bait, real or not.
Lokland – “2. Men are more capable of compartmentalization. When in the gym in a serious training session I want nothing more then to smash my buddies face into the ground over and over again (hence the mat). He is the enemy.
After the bell rings we laugh about who won/lost and grab a beer.”
Perfect example. I was trying to go this route with my “friend at work” scenario, but this is much easier to grasp. Perhaps this is a more male oriented trait? It seems at least a few of the women here aren’t able to grasp it, so I’m wondering if this is something along the lines of a male vs. female mentality.
@VD
They operate like the Nielsen ratings do for TV – they’re an extrapolation. Still, like Nielsen, Alexa is the gold standard, used primarily by potential advertisers to gauge a blog’s reach.
Rank is based on both visitors and pageviews. So not just traffic, but how much looking around people do once they arrive.
The truth is that when you get down to levels of 50,000th rank, you’re dealing with minimal data compared to some of the really big sites. FTR, Alexa tracks all websites, not just blogs.
@ Jackie
ROFL.
Mireille – “I see your point. I also know in light of your previous comments that you somewhat have a very idealistic (unrealistic?) view of certain things.”
not so much. I have a very realistic view of things IMO. And my view of this reality is: she lied to get married to him. The rest doesn’t matter. If I was more of an idealist, I’d be all marshmellows and rainbows about this and say the guy was a dolt for walking out. But, the reality is, he was duped into getting married. Just because she did a good job of being a wife does NOT negate the fact that in his eye she never deserved the job in the first place.
Their children? If I was her son, I’d be pissed as hell that she lied to my father for 40 years. You don’t lie to people you love, which brings into quesiton if she ever even loved him fully. She surely didn’t respect him.
But again, all of that is conjecture. I take issue with the defense of a lying woman. A woman that pulled one of the worst tricks on a man she could next to cuckolding. A woman that acted with total disregard for the feelings of someone she “loves” and defrauded him. And the fact that any woman would ever defend her just makes me want to bang my head on the desk. I may end up with a permenant bump like Susan.
@VD
“The range at HUS is different than it is at AG, which is itself different than VP. Susan has very good reasons for maintaining her limits; rather than complaining that they are not what you consider optimal, reserve your negative feedback for places that seek it out. Different audiences have different tolerances for adversarial conflict and you are too geared up for battle to play nicely here.”
This has nothing to do with me and my tastes. It goes without saying that bloggers get to decide what and whom they allow on their sites. What I find problematic is when the propensity for starting online feuds, picking fights with other bloggers and seeking mainstream exposure is coupled with tightening comment moderation and being loudly offended by receiving negative feedback. That’s simply disingenuous. She wants to have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of blogging – under her real name, I might add. Yup, blogdom is indeed not about fairness. If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones on others.
@Ted D
Well, Ted, we both know that’s been a bit of a problem. Your wishing to debate issues here that are anathema to me. I’ve said repeatedly that this is not where you digest the red pill.
Here was my original response:
I feel very confident that no HUS female regular would condone the actions of that woman or argue her husband’s right to divorce her. I am surprised, frankly, that he wouldn’t weigh 40 years of sexual faithfulness against that lie, but whatever. It’s his choice.
…It sounds like she is somewhat remorseful, but not enough. Frankly, I think they both sound strange. How a pair like this could ever make a good marriage I can’t imagine. Also, she says she was having sex for four years. We don’t know if it’s with one guy or 50. We have no idea what her husband actually overheard that day. Perhaps she was a prostitute!
We don’t have enough information to judge, but I agree with Vox – the marriage contract was fraudulent and is therefore null and void. I do find the husband’s reaction extreme – then again, his view before marriage was extreme (IMO). I don’t know why she thought he was “the one.” A wacky story all around.
How is that defending her?
@ Mireille:
“What is more valuable? So she lied so he could call her his wife. So she lied so she could be the one to feed him soup when he is sick or do his laundry.”
You erroneously believe her lie was for a greater good. It was not. Her lie was calculated to benefit HER, and only her.
There is the lie, and there is considering their 40 years of marriage null and void. This is where I disagree. If people cannot see beyond the details and see the efforts and sacrifices, and real contributions others make in their lives, then humanity is lost for good.
”
“What about all that love and care that was received and given during the marriage, was it all a lie as well?”
Perhaps it wasn’t a lie. But even if the love and care was true and sincerely given, the wife has given her husband cause to question whether it was a lie or the truth.
A marriage is supposed to be founded on trust. He married her believing certain things about her were true. Had he known the truth, he might not have married her. Or at least he could have made a more informed decision.
At any rate, the wife did not shatter only an ideal. She shattered his trust in her. A husband must be able to trust his wife — trust that what she says is true; that she can be trusted to go places and remain sexually continent; that she can be trusted to keep herself to him. He cannot watch her all the time; her character must be such that she is trustworthy so that he can repose confidence in her.
She showed a serious character deficit that probably affects their entire marriage. What else has she lied about? If she says “nothing else”, why should he believe her? If she says “I love you”, why should he believe her? Why should he believe anything she says? Why should he believe any of her actions and conduct and words are sincere?
@Lokland
I agree, and that is why I objected to Mike C’s claim that we need Rollos in the world to deal with the likes of Mireille. Mireille is one woman, and you may hate her viewpoint. That doesn’t mean we need purveyors of hostile generalizations about female nature to fight it.
Ted D, “You don’t lie to people you love, which brings into quesiton if she ever even loved him fully. She surely didn’t respect him.”
I definitely agree with this. The ex had lied to me for 10 years, and when I found out, the 7-year relationship was over. He tried to cover it up and say he was lying to himself, so it didn’t count as a lie to me, but that was totally a line of BS. The trust was totally gone, and to this day I don’t know what things he told me were truths and what were falsehoods. And I don’t frankly care.
Jackie and Cooper, it’s the Daily Mail. Of course it’s going to have trollish stuff and flat-out lies. Yes, while we’re talking about lies, let’s talk about how the Daily Mail had lost some libel lawsuits for lies they’ve published. Also:
http://neurobonkers.com/2011/10/05/no-laughing-matter-the-daily-mails-web-of-deceit-lies-and-misinformation/
Susan, your charge of “projection” is totally baffling. I want to post a picture of Vizzini from Princess Bride.
That woman’s behavior, as described by herself in her own letter, is bizzare. It just doesn’t add up. The questions I have raised are entirely legit. To have done what she did when she claims it’s important to keep her big secret makes no sense unless she has a some kind of death wish for her marriage or else really wants to stick it to her husband.
Your anecdote about how such a conversation might unfold in your own life is all well and good but your situation and hers are not only not analagous they are spectacularly different.
Re: sluts and bonding, I find it odd how you will frequently defend a man’s right to shun commitment from sluts or high-N girls but then you turn and around and insist that every reason we cite for doing so is false and irrational. So, OK, we are free to shun them even though there is no reason to shun them, basically, you are saying we are free to be stupid, just as anyone is free to search Seabright for buried treasure with a metal detector.
@ Jackie
Oops.
I’m not trying to attack the model. Just the over the top makeup use required by the fashion industry.
Susan – “How is that defending her?”
I never claimed you did actually. I’ve not given any names because frankly I’m not interested in crucifying anyone. If you want the truth, the responses from Iggles and J are the ones that upset me first. Mirielle’s was the comment that broke my camels back.
but… “I feel very confident that no HUS female regular would condone the actions of that woman or argue her husband’s right to divorce her. I am surprised, frankly, that he wouldn’t weigh 40 years of sexual faithfulness against that lie, but whatever. It’s his choice.”
Why should he take those 40 years into account? How do you know if she was faithful the entire 40 years? I mean, she so easily lied before they were married, what makes you think she didn’t continue to lie after?
I guess I’m at a loss as to why you and other women feel the need to pass some kind of moral judgment on this guy. Based on what little we know, this is pretty cut and dry to me. What he decides to do about it is totally his choice, regardless of how “stupid” or “childish” it is.
IMO it would have been better to simply say that this was tragic and unfortunate. Throwing out comments about what a bastard the guy is for leaving is nothing more than clouding the issue.
@Susan,
Your middle of the road perspective (which I actually agree with and share) is what seems to be the issue. If you’re not deliberately and categorically declaring that the 40 years of marriage amount to nothing and the husband should DEFINITELY divorce his wife, then it means you’re still defending the wife. Appearantly nuance is lost on a lot of people. I really would like to have the opinion of someone who’s been married for 40 years on that topic. Clear than that, most of our POV are quasi irrelevant in the end. Even people who marry and encounter infidelity and lies, can sometimes work out solutions.
@ Jackie
That would accurately describe half the manosphere.
Even if that letter was totally made up, the interesting point is the male v. female response here.
I don’t complain about them, I ridicule them. They amuse me with their playground bully antics. I suspect most of them experienced arrested development at around age 13.
Believe it or not, a lot of females here found me via Roissy. Guys too. I have no idea how that happens, as he certainly doesn’t have me on his blogroll. In any case, several female commenters read a lot more in the sphere than I do. They do not need any encouragement from me to make their opinions known.
Stop lying, no one is banned. Rollo has left comments here recently – in the last week or two.
What does that have to do with anything? Who isn’t seeking mainstream exposure? That has nothing to do with my haters, other than that it explains their behavior.
We hate it when our friends become successful
We hate it when our friends become successful
Oh, look at those clothes
Now look at that face, it’s so old
And such a video !
Well, it’s really laughable
Ha, ha, ha …
We hate it when our friends become successful
And if they’re Northern, that makes it even worse
And if we can destroy them
You bet your life we will
Destroy them
If we can hurt them
Well, we may as well …
It’s really laughable
Ha, ha, ha …
You see, it should’ve been me
It could’ve been me
Everybody knows
Everybody says so
Morrissey
There is no male here who likes you that you cannot find regularly on other blogs. Go away.
“Even people who marry and encounter infidelity and lies, can sometimes work out solutions.”
Not in my marriage. Infidelity is an instant divorce proceeding. Lying? I’d have to actually deal with the situation to make a judgment. Lying about where a few bucks went so my wife can buy me a present or surprise? Nothing to see. Lying about where she was so she can meet up with another guy? See my point about infidelity.
But if I found out my wife lied to me about her past before we married knowing how I felt about it? That one is easy to answer. You’ll be hearing from my lawyer.
@ Susan
Yes you can. A highly active beta hamster makes it quite easy.
I don’t seek online feuds, they result from my ideas. IIRC, you managed to turn a harmless Happy Father’s Day post into an online feud.
I don’t pick fights with other bloggers. Dalrockgate was 100% initiated and perp’d by him. I don’t mention and deride other bloggers in my post, as Rollo does, e.g. Aunt Giggles.
I believe I may have to wield the ban hammer at some point, as comment moderation is not working to keep assholes away.
I disregard negative feedback that is personal. I literally couldn’t care less. One exception is when comments have made me feel vulnerable. Thanks to Dalrock’s rabid pack, there have been times when I worried about blogging under my real name with a known location. I believe some of his readers are unhinged, and I slept very poorly last December and January.
FTR, the children support the wife.
+1 to deti here, FWIW
@Escoffier
You’re right, it doesn’t add up. Since she obviously does not want her marriage to end, or to injure her husband, we must wonder if your filling in of the blanks is accurate. That is, reminiscing about past alpha lovers. We have no information about that, and frankly, the story adds up a lot more easily if the husband heard the friend say something revealing about the past. We don’t even know what he heard. You’re projecting your assumptions.
I defend any person’s right to disqualify any other person as a potential mate for any reason. I am well aware that perhaps the majority of male readers here would have disqualified me. That’s fine, I have no problem with it. That is not the same as agreeing that a woman with a certain hypothetical N is going to be unable to bond.
I suspect that promiscuous women are damaged and not good relationship prospects. I hold the same opinion about promiscuous men. I do not have anything but personal observation, i.e. anecdotal evidence, to confirm my views. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Deti (and perhaps you too) appear to be setting the bar very low. I haven’t heard either of you give a number, but I do not believe that a woman with a handful of previous LTR sexual experiences, or God forbid, even a fling or two is necessarily compromised in her fitness as a future wife. I respect your right to believe otherwise and select accordingly.
I have been consistent on this point.
Again, you’re inventing details and adding to the story! You can’t fictionalize the account and then demand a different response from people.
I don’t judge him morally – I side with him morally 100%. Personally, I question his strategy. He is now alone in a bedsit, sending checks to his wife. Surely he is miserable, yet he will not even speak to her. I know people who have dealt with some pretty terrible stuff in marriage, and they’ve worked it out. I question whether he is making a huge mistake, but I recognize that it’s not my call.
I have said that she does not come across as remorseful or having taken full responsibility for her actions. She sounds terrible.
FTR, several males in this thread have agreed that his judgment was too harsh. This is not really a XX vs. XY debate.
“Lying? I’d have to actually deal with the situation to make a judgment.” – Ted D
And this is exactly what the husband is doing. Taking the time to think about it. What I’m saying is that he should be careful to really assess if that lie nullifies the 40 years he had with that woman. If there are no other issues such as potential adultery or theft (after all we don’t know the whole story), he should consider things. I’m not advocating that he just brushes over the lie and act like nothing happened. Not at all; but when the anger and disapointment recedes, what is real is the family he has and the wife that loves him, even as imperfect as she is. Now, if he really can’t get pass it, it will be the end of them. For the moment, he has to grieve for the “idea” he had of his wife.
@ Lokland,
Hating is a serious word. So much passion over a faceless woman’s comments. My comments were in no way derogatory or even rude. I’m not advising all men who find themselves in such situation to put it under the carpet. I’m just saying 40 years is something to ponder.
@Mireille
Yes, this is where I get into trouble nearly every time.
1) I don’t think we can say that she “obviously did not want to injure her husband.” She clearly took a heedless and stupid risk in seeing that old friend again and in inviting her over. I mean, supposing I had a wild past and some friends from that time with whom I boozed, drugged, whored and worse, and one of them got in touch with me after 20 years … I probably would not want to see them. And if I did, the last place I would invite them would be my home, with my wife present.
2) I personally would not have married a woman with even a single ONS in her past. Exception might have been if she were really, really penitent about it.
3) You keep repeating this claim that I am setting a number when I have said over and over that of course the number varies by the individual. There is no unversal cut-off. The only universal here is a principal: additional N will eventually affect a woman’s ability to bond. Certainly, adding more never HELPS. Perhaps there are some women who could rack up infinite N and preserve their ability to bond. Such a woman, and I doubt any exist, would still be problematic to me because of her robot-like abilitly to sever sex from emotion. But be that as it may, you also seem to assume that as long as N is racked up through LTRs then the woman is not a slut and her ability to bond can never be harmed. Really, and would you place no cap on that? 10 LTRs sounds like a lot to me and I would worry about such a woman and would not marry here.
Now I’m off to get my metal detector, I know there’s gold here somewhere!
@Escoffier
You added a lot of details. Women (and some men) responded to the letter, not your dramatization of it. Several people called you out on this, but you ignored them.
INTJ
“That would accurately describe half the manosphere.”
I admit I haven’t really read every comment, and honestly value both the men and women’s input on the issue, but it always seems like whenever there’s even a mild dispute, a ‘droid from the sphere pops up to throw flames.
My theory is that some of these men are jealous of people who are accepted here, male and female, because the manosphere’s cult mentality, constant sucking up under the wing of lead alpha, no real female support, etc., has left them in a wallowing state of misery and self-pity, which loves company. They resurface whenever the slightest opportunity presents itself it seems, —>“come join us in hell! The weather’s warm, and you’ll lead your own minion!!!!”.
I did not add any detail. I raised questions about her actions. And at one point I speculated that the likely tenor of the conversation with the friend was one of reminiscence.
In one post in which you tried to say I was full of it, you then went on to say “Here’s what me reminiscing with one of my GFs might be like, perhaps her convo was like that.”
So, Susan, why is it out of line for me to speculate that she was reminiscing but fine for you to do so, in a post telling me I am all wet for speculating?
@Escoffier
Again, you’re supposing. We have no information to support this view of the relationship, the invitation, or the forethought regarding the secret.
That’s why her action nullifies the marriage contract. No one has said he has no right or grounds to divorce her. He was knowingly deceived. No one has questioned that.
I agree with this.
That is not what I said. I said that I believe the propensity to bond well vs. poorly probably is not originally rooted in N. I have also said that women may have sex in LTRs, or in hookups hoping for LTRs without being sluts. I have seen no evidence that women who are not sluts (as I define the term) and do not make a habit of promiscuity are less likely to bond to a husband. But I certainly am not arguing that you or anyone else should take a chance on a woman whose sexual history makes you uncomfortable.
One sexual partner per year from age 18-28 does not strike me as unreasonable, but this is probably a middle of the road view wrt restricted vs. unrestricted sociosexuality. Restricted men will obviously feel differently, and have said so here. Unrestricted men here have also said they couldn’t care less about 10. Then again, they’re more likely to divorce, so who knows.
No, Susan, we know she had a past that she considered problematic enough that she had to hide it from her husband. Those are her words. We know she deliberately move away from her home town and all her old friends so that her husband would not be likely to hear “over the grapevine” about her past. Again, her words.
So she was running away from a past, which she then specifically invited into her house. With him home.
That makes no sense.
I speculated a different scenario simply to demonstrate that we don’t know the facts. Your speculation may cause us to judge her conversation with her friend inconsiderate, careless and selfish, while mine might show her to be relatively innocent fo wrongdoing in that conversation.
I just think we need to know what we don’t know:
1. Her specific sexual history between the ages of 18-22 (might coincide with university).
2. Her relationship to the old friend.
3. The circumstances leading to the invitation.
4. The specific conversation – its tenor, specificity, length and content.
5. The woman’s response to the conversation – laughing vs. changing the subject, reminiscing vs. horror at hearing the secret voiced after all these years, etc.
6. Exactly what her husband heard.
7. Whether she apologized (I agree the letter is not very remorseful.)
8. What the marriage was like aside from this disclosure (though she says it was successful).
That’s a lot we don’t know. I know that if I were on a jury, I would not be able to render a verdit without additional information. That is what I am saying, and all I am saying. I have not declared her innocent, but the evidence is sketchy aside from the fact that we know she lied. No one is arguing she is not guilty of lying 40 years ago.
well, sure the propseniy to bond is not ORIGINALLY rooted in N. I have no doubt that some women are born by nature better able to bond and some less able. The point is, adding more N past a certain point–that point varying by individual–degrades that natural, in-born propensity.
A ONS is always slutty behavior. A very small number of ONS does not necessarily make a girl a slut, the same way various moral lapses do not necessarily make a person vicious. But if the are repeated and never repented, then yes, she is a slut.
I might possibly have married a girl who had a ONS if she really regretted it and could articulate why it was wrong and “not her.” One who said “My past made me who I am, it was all part of development and growth, I regret nothing,”–no. Run away.
ROFL. Have to say the demographics speak a lot about those types.
Honestly Susan, I do appreciate your talking about your own past here in an honest way because I think it helps the conversation and it helps a lot of people. I will admit though that when I first read you talking frankly about your sexual past with men not your husband, my first (and second, and third) thought was “I wonder how her husband feels about THAT.”
Personally, I would be quite pissed if my wife had any sort of convo with a GF about a past BF, and I would be ripshit if she giggled about sex with another man the way your characterized your own hypothetical conversation. I wouldn’t even want her having such a convo out of earshot, but within? No way.
Here is something I think you ladies will have to accept about most men. You are telling us to accept the fact that we can’t have virgins anymore because times have changed. OK, fine, times have definitely changed and virgins are scarce. But here’s YOUR end of the deal: for most of us to be willing to accept you and your N, you need to bury it. No reminiscing, no giggling, no trips down memory lane. Except if they are in your own head, and even then, try to cut those out too. Certainly, don’t show any outward sign.
Yes, I agree, and I said so at the beginning of the thread. I don’t know what you want me to say – I condemn her for lying, and I think the story is very strange and full of holes. It’s the equivalent of a National Enquirer story and I don’t understand why we are discussing it!
Let’s just call this woman bad and be done with it.
“That’s why her action nullifies the marriage contract. No one has said he has no right or grounds to divorce her. ”
Let me check on my “legitimate reasons to divorce book”.
(1) Adultery? Nope.
(2) Abuse? Nope.
(3) Brother and sister married? Nope.
No reason to grant a divorce.
A marriage is not really a legal contract. It’s something else. If you want to put it into the legal contract book, fine, but it’s not.
Moving on…
I am defending myself against charges of “projection” and making things up.
@Escoffier
As you can imagine, my husband and I discussed at length the rather unusual way we got together, and my ONSs at that time were cited as his reason for believing I was not interested in (worthy of?) a relationship. He never asked about my number per se – he knew about the ONSs because he had seen me at parties. He had a few himself.
I can honestly say that I have never seen the slightest hint that my husband is haunted by those ONSs. It has never come up in an argument or as a source of discomfort or insecurity. Perhaps it’s because we have had a good sex life, IDK. I think it probably helped that his own history was similar – I was not more experienced than he was, for sure. I guess he’s agrees with Tom.
I can tell you that falling in love with him erased any and all wistful feelings about previous men. He has never had a reason to feel threatened, and so he hasn’t.
@ Ted D
What??? You must be mixing her up with someone else.
I’m simply pointing out what we don’t know, and that you sketched out a scenario filling in some of those blanks, which is fine, but not Kosher for a verdict.
@ Esco:
“You are telling us to accept the fact that we can’t have virgins anymore because times have changed.”
Times have changed, yes, but I don’t think you completely grok the SMP dynamics of today’s generation. Young men don’t want sluts, sure, but they assuredly do not want virgins, either.
“I don’t understand why we are discussing it!
The men are driving this discussion because it’s every man’s fear — that his wife has not been entirely honest with him about her N; or that she has had better sex with a prior partner, or that she finds a prior partner more attractive than he is. No man wants to be his wife’s Plan B, to know that she settled for him.
And it seems to be many women’s viewpoint that, oh well, it was just a little lie; that her 40 years of fidelity validates what is essentially fraud in the inducement; that the passage of time makes right a fundamental wrong which SHE perpetrated on HIM for HER own ends. Not their ends. Not his ends. Not for the good of the marriage. For HER own selfish purposes.
More troubling, I read into Mireille’s comments a distinct sense that whatever was good for HER is good for THEM and thus for the marriage. That whatever she deemed necessary or beneficial is de facto good for the marriage. It completely devalues his thoughts, wants, needs and desires of what HE wanted from what was HIS marriage.
@Escoffier
Ah, two things:
I am not telling men they have to accept high N because virgins are scarce. Most men today aren’t virgins either. I am saying that any checklist items will serve as a filter and reduce the Search results. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t apply the filter.
Fair enough re trips down memory lane. They have no place in a relationship.
As always, I would advise men to take plenty of time testing a woman’s love for you before marrying. Never marry with doubts – if you are unhappy with her sexual history, you might as well move on because that will not decrease over time.
But I certainly am not arguing that you or anyone else should take a chance on a woman whose sexual history makes you uncomfortable.
___________
I agree with this and the fact that what bothers one man may not be enough to bother a different man.
The gal who lied forty years ago should not have lied, but if she has been a great wife for 4 decades and the husband considered himself lucky to have her before he knew the truth, he should be able to give her a break. She IS still a great wife, after all, her past from 40 years ago hasn`t changed that, only his perception has changed.
Mireille at 1205: “When reading the echos of that story, I didn’t consider whether or not one of them was wrong or right. We are passed that point. The fact is they are a marriage and should focus on moving forward from there.”
Cue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI
The longer version, definitely “focused on moving forward from there”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y34RlJ0L0xE
Timeless, really.
SayWhaat: “Young men don’t want sluts, sure, but they assuredly do not want virgins, either.”
I am sure I don’t grok the SMP among younger adults completely. If what you say is true, I would venture a guess that younger men as a group don’t want virgins because they are plowing forth toward sex as soon as possible. They don’t want the hassle of a virgin because it will take too long to get to sex. And they don’t have any intention of marriage or any other kind of long term commitment.
Another distinct possibility is that this is apex fallacy at work. I suspect you are commenting on the men you know and find attractive, which would be top men, which in turn would be the men with the most sexual options and the least incentive to be looking for a place to invest and commit.
@Deti:
“No man wants to be his wife’s Plan B, to know that she settled for him.”
Who on God’s Green Earth gets to marry their first choice?
Everybody settles because you probably aren’t getting your first choice.
Wanted to add a caveat to my previous comment:
I am well aware that my experiences with young men re: virginity cannot and should not be extrapolated to the larger male population. It’s entirely possible that my experiences are only representative of a segment of the population (ie Northeastern men in a heavily metropolitan area).
Susan, wasn’t there a survey/study that reported the ideal # of partners by sex? I could be completely wrong about the existence of such a survey but thought I’d at least check.
@deti
I think it’s a big, big lie, and I don’t think women downplayed that aspect. What they have questioned is his decision to cut off all contact with her after 40 years of marriage. I honestly don’t know what I would do if I found out something equivalent. Not sure what that would be – a kid by another woman maybe? It would be terribly distressing, but I don’t think I would end my marriage.
Whereas I know I would end my marriage for infidelity. I think what is hard for women to grok is the idea that what happened before we even knew you could matter that much. I get that it touches off fear of cuckoldry, but the fact is she did not cuckold him. The lie should count against her, but that does not mean that she was a bad wife, failed to make him happy, etc. Personally, I think I would weigh our life together against the original deceit. But I believe this is a personal choice. She obviously chose a man with extremely firm views of morality – she knew that – and he has not changed. She is at fault for the breakup.
Deti:
Please see my previous comment. As to the assertion of apex fallacy, LOL. I’m notorious among my friends (male and female alike!) for dating well below my SMV.
I’ve heard the following, including here at this blog:
Virgins get clingy fast.
I don’t want to hook up with a virgin b/c I don’t want the responsibility of being her first.
I hate the mess.
Sex with virgins is never fun or good.
She won’t know what she’s doing in bed.
I do believe there is an apex fallacy element to this – but the point is there are no men offering the opinion that they would love to meet and date a virgin, at least not in mixed company.
Well, you’ve certainly broken that streak. He holds his own, I’d say. Easily.
@Susan:
“She obviously chose a man with extremely firm views of morality – she knew that – and he has not changed. She is at fault for the breakup.”
The problem with society is that we can’t even agree on morality anymore.
It’s supposed to be completely objective and knowable.
Not some fluffy mush where no one knows what’s right and what’s wrong.
“What they have questioned is his decision to cut off all contact with her after 40 years of marriage.”
Probably because his desire for a virgin bride and her representations to him were a basis for his decision to marry her. They were a foundation of his marriage to him. It is not just the years of faithful wifely service. Her lie from the beginning calls all of that into question. If she could lie to him so blithely at the very beginning of the marriage, why should he believe she has told the truth about anything else? If the start of his marriage was a lie, how is it that everything else is true? In his mind, his entire marriage is founded on a lie, and is — or very well could be — a lie as well.
The law recognizes a doctrine called “fruit of the poisonous tree”, a recognition that the products of an illegal search and seizure cannot be admitted into evidence in a court. Because the search was illegal, it never should have been conducted in the first place, and the ill-gotten gains of that search would never have been found. This man no doubt views his entire marriage as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Second, her conduct shows a profound lack of respect. She did not respect him enough to be honest with her.
“I think what is hard for women to grok is the idea that what happened before we even knew you could matter that much. I get that it touches off fear of cuckoldry, but the fact is she did not cuckold him. The lie should count against her, but that does not mean that she was a bad wife, failed to make him happy, etc. Personally, I think I would weigh our life together against the original deceit.”
What happened before matters that much because, as Ted said before, we want to be the best. We don’t want to be Plan B or Plan F or Plan Q. A man wants to know that his wife didn’t marry him because, “well, I guess he’ll haffta do, cuz I’ve already been through all the others and they just wanted to fuck me and didn’t want to marry me.”
Haha, thanks!
Now if only I can get him to stop wearing some of his old clothes… “But it’s comfortable!” -__- lol
“Virgins get clingy fast.
I don’t want to hook up with a virgin b/c I don’t want the responsibility of being her first.
I hate the mess.
Sex with virgins is never fun or good.
She won’t know what she’s doing in bed.”
Adding a few more I’ve heard:
Virgins must have a lower SMV.
Virgins have daddy issues.
Virgins have a cold/prudish/frigid/sheepish personalities.
Esau
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y34RlJ0L0xE
Timeless, really.”
Agree!!!
I think what is hard for women to grok is the idea that what happened before we even knew you could matter that much. I get that it touches off fear of cuckoldry, but the fact is she did not cuckold him. The lie should count against her, but that does not mean that she was a bad wife, failed to make him happy, etc. Personally, I think I would weigh our life together against the original deceit
_____________
Fact of the matter is nothing has changed, in reality, except his ego.
The good old Daily Mail published a survey by a website for young women seeking Sugar Daddies (and vice versa) that said that 10 is the ideal number according to both sexes. Since the sample was people essentially practicing prostitution, I don’t think it’s reliable.
The AskMen Survey from 2011 suggested 5, but no lower option was given:
The Grinch’s response to this predicament
“All I need is a rein-virgin…”
The Grinch looked around.
But, since rein-virgins are scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grinch…?
NO! The Grinch simply said,
“If I can’t find a rein-virgin, I’ll make one instead!”
So he called up Maxine. Then he took some red thread
And he tied a big hymen on the top of her head.
Fact of the matter is nothing has changed, in reality, except his ego.
Disagree. What’s changed is his knowledge of the basis of his marriage. He thought it was based on one set of facts, when in reality it was based on an entirely different set of facts previously unknown to him.
And with a reduced or bruised ego, the husband probably knows his wife’s opinion of him is low — and was probably never as high as he thought it was.
@ Susan
I don’t know whether a woman’s LTR N lowers her ability to bond. What is certain is that a virgin is far less likely to divorce/get divorced than a non-virgin. Whether she is a virgin because she has a higher ability to bond or the other way around or there is a common cause is unclear.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html
Hmm, interesting. I wonder if that (the cut-off of 5) is telling in and of itself.
OT: boyfriend is growing a beard for a role and it is HOT. Seriously if you can pull it off all guys should grow beards. Omfg.
It does call it into question, I agree. Surely he can look back on 40 years of marriage and know in his heart whether their happiness was real or manufactured. People don’t fake loyalty and passion for 40 years. To be fair, we don’t know if she was loyal or passionate. We don’t know what the marriage was like.
Perhaps when he learned that everything he’d been suspecting and worrying about fell into place. Maybe he always sensed that she didn’t really love him. We don’t know. She did say she knew he was “the one.” So she considered him her soulmate at that point. There is no evidence in the article that she pined for alpha cock during her marriage. None. If that is his fear, it would have to be based on more than has been presented here.
“What happened before matters that much because, as Ted said before, we want to be the best. We don’t want to be Plan B or Plan F or Plan Q.”
Plans change all the time.
As Rumsfeld might say, you go into marriage and family life with the husband/wife you have not the husband/wife you wish you had.
@Susan
I would love to meet and date a virgin if she were appealing in looks, personality, character, etc. Her virginity, especially for an LTR or marriage, is no deal breaker to me. I valued it highly when I was a religious virgin but now that I’m not I certainly don’t hold that against a woman. Now, for a man wanting a P&D, I can see virginity being held against her and there may be a few LTR men who would prefer she has some more experience but I think most wouldn’t care that much.
Deti if he was a smart man he would learn a lession from this. His wife was not affected one iota from her past and was everything he wanted in a wife. He stayed 40 years with her, she must have been a good wife. But no, he will listen to his ego instead.
@INTJ
I’m well aware of the Teachman study, I’ve written about it before. It is interesting, but it also has some issues. For one thing, they studied cohabiting couples for the purpose of learning the effect of cohabitation on marriage. And it’s never been replicated. Also, IIRC, the effect of a college education cancelled out the effect completely.
“the point is there are no men offering the opinion that they would love to meet and date a virgin, at least not in mixed company.”
*raises hand* (FWIW)
I’ve generally only dated virgins. I’m 3 for 4 on that count.
I didn’t occur to me until I was reading this blog that wasn’t how life worked.
But then again, I’m such an outlier in so many ways, I suppose that’s par for the course.
@ Esau
That’s exactly what’s going on here.
@ Susan
Obviously. Offering that opinion would be social suicide. Particularly in mixed company (aside from feminist white knights, most men don’t care, but women get extremely offended).
If you want men to offer that opinion get women to stop shaming them for offering that opinion.
@INTJ, Susan #1286
Interesting article, with some reassuring numbers
I’m kinda at loss with Chart 3 though. Why are the women with 2 premarital partners listed to have a higher 1st marriage fail rate than the women with 5, 10, and 21+ premarital partners? An anomaly?
@Cooper:
“I’m kinda at loss with Chart 3 though. Why are the women with 2 premarital partners listed to have a higher 1st marriage fail rate than the women with 5, 10, and 21+ premarital partners? An anomaly?”
My guess? Married at 18.
Without the strong exterior enforcement of non-divorce to keep it intact, it just collapses due to personality issues or life goals.
“His wife was not affected one iota from her past and was everything he wanted in a wife.”
Tom, you’re wrong about that too. Her past did affect her, so much so that she felt a need to cover it up and lie about it, and then kept it secret from her husband for 40 years.
She was not everything he wanted in a wife. He wanted a virgin, or at least N =1, which is what she told him. She wasn’t that.
Deti you are missing the fact she was everything “else” he wanted in a wife. Obviously he couldnt tell by her past she was “tainted”..And that is my point, she wasn`t tainted and she proved it by being a faithful, loving wife. Hes a moron for ending such a marriage.
And Deti if he is going to be bothered by the “ghosts” of her sexual past, at this point of his life and after FORTY years, then shame on him…No, she was wrong, but it was FORTY years ago.
“Plans change all the time.
“As Rumsfeld might say, you go into marriage and family life with the husband/wife you have not the husband/wife you wish you had.”
It’s true that plans change all the time. This husband didn’t get to change the plan. He had the plan changed on him, without his knowledge. Worse, he wasn’t even told of the plan. This isn’t a situation in which a healthy spouse gets sick or loses a job. Those things happen. That was not this situation.
Sure, you go with the spouse you have, but it’s presumed that your spouse is going to tell the other what she is giving him so he knows what he DOES have. And what you DO have isn’t supposed to be a surprise or kept from you.
There’s the moral vs. practical angle here.
The moral angle is that because she engaged in extra-marital sex she engaged in an immoral act that makes her evil, so to speak, which is where this guy is coming from. She engaged in evil and is not fit for marriage.
The practical angle is that she is able to form a stable bond, so there’s no problem with respect to the solidity of the marriage, which is where the woman is coming from. She didn’t ruin her ability to bond and is fit for marriage.
HanSolo,
OMG this made my day!!! I read a hilarious article about false hymens a few months ago… they actually manufacture them in some Asian country, and they sell in places where the consequences for a non-virgin wife are much more extreme. According to the author, who actually tried using one, it wasn’t very, er, realistic. Apparently the globs of fake blood were overkill.
“The moral angle is that because she engaged in extra-marital sex she engaged in an immoral act that makes her evil, so to speak, which is where this guy is coming from. She engaged in evil and is not fit for marriage.”
JP, it’s not the extramarital sex; it’s the lying, deception and fraud.
@Deti:
“JP, it’s not the extramarital sex; it’s the lying, deception and fraud.”
No, the extramarital sex is the root of the problem. He thinks it’s evil, therefore he would never have married her had he known what she did. That’s the real root of the problem.
The lying, deception, and fraud flow from that. The extramarital sex is the driver.
And the apparent lack of remorse.
@Olive
Glad it made your day. I enjoy and appreciate your comments. How’s your brother doing? I believe it was your brother that went on the blind date, etc.
She lied because to tell the truth would have been catastrophic.
The fact remains that the marriage worked and was apparently stable.
@INTJ:
“And the apparent lack of remorse.”
She’s not sorry because the only way to have created the marriage was to lie in the first place.
Of course she’s not sorry.
She intended everything and is not sorry for a consciously intended act that accomplished its purpose.
Isn’t it kind of hard to show remorse for something that you decided in advance and then executed and it turned out exactly the way you wanted?
JP:
Your argument at 1310 lends support to my view. The wife’s position is that she lied, but it was OK because it was to serve her purposes. She truly believes that whatever was good for HER was good for HIM and thus good for her marriage.
That’s the problem: Her apparent belief, supported with your argument, that HER needs are coextensive with, and determinative of, THEIR needs; that elevates her needs above his and conflates her desires to be their mutual desires.
“The fact remains that the marriage worked and was apparently stable.”
Worked FOR HER. Apparently stable FOR HER.
“Isn’t it kind of hard to show remorse for something that you decided in advance and then executed and it turned out exactly the way you wanted?”
It turned out the way SHE wanted. It evidently didn’t turn out the way HE wanted.
Everyone is assuming that because they were together 40 years, it was to his benefit. Perhaps not, not if he didn’t get what he wanted from the beginning.
Everyone is assuming that because she got what she wanted, he must have gotten what he wanted. It is being assumed that what was to her benefit was also to his. Evidently, that’s not the case.
I’m going to Godwin this.
Are YOU going to date zombie Hitler?
past indicates character, past matters.
HanSolo,
My brother’s good! Haven’t really heard anything about the blind date, but he did get a sweet job offer with a larger starting salary than I’ll ever make in my life, and he hasn’t even graduated college yet, so I’m too busy being jealous of him to be worried about his love life right now.
I think the question is ultimately whether extra-marital sex is an improper moral action.
If it is, then he is justified because his position is compatible with the underlying moral order and she should beg his forgiveness for fornicating.
If it is not, then she is justified because his original position was incompatible with the underlying moral order and he needs to stop being irrational.
Tom,
Ain’t no one earth that will be “everything” to you, and no one on earth is perfect. And all relationships are work and compromise and give and take.
He had his conditions for commitment. He didn’t want to compromise or work, except for a virgin girl.
Entirely his choice to make. Apparently he would have preferred to been alone than to live a life with a woman who was sexually loose, and he prefers to live alone than to sacrifice endlessly to a woman who will lie to him about something very important to him.
I would also prefer to live alone than to bust my ass making my relationship “work” for someone is willing to lie to my face on something that I consider important.
Lol. I think they’re a bit tied up protecting themselves from virgin-shaming.
That reminds me…there was an associate I used to work with who was known on our team for being hilariously inappropriate. He was the “life of the party” guy. One time he mocked the “sexually empowered” concept at a team event. I was cracking up. He totally got away with it, no shaming whatsoever.
I think that the last time I actually shamed anyone was back in 1999.
I think Tom gets it.
If I know what’s good in life, I’ll forgive and pass over it. This is how some women forgive male unfaithfullness and stay married in spite of the transgression. It is an individual choice, being mature is being able to look at your life and count the blessings you have received. I probably hang out with too many old people who got philosophical because, well, death is near.
If the husband married her SPECIFICALLY because she was a virgin, then too bad for him. Picking a wife simple based on the state of her vagina is questionable. If however, other qualities attracted him and she wasn’t found lacking later on, then he will find a way to forgive and move on. Otherwise it is throwing the baby with the bath water as you may say.
OK. I think I found the source of the dispute.
The anti-fornication program was apparently launched by the early church against the problem of the Greek Gods, including Aphrodite and Eros.
So, in sum, “The Septaugint’s mandate to worship the Lord alone among all gods led to a Christian program to revolutionize Gentile sexual practices, only for the early Christians to find this virtually impossible without going to extremes of sexual renunciation.”
So, this guy’s problem is ultimately derived from the fact that the Greeks worshiped Aphrodite and Eros and the early Church had to knock off those two.
The entire virgin issue which is a problem in this letter that we are debating derived from the fact that the Greeks had some sex-related gods and when the Christians overthrew them, they had to go anti-sex to knock off Aphrodite and Eros.
And who said ancient history wasn’t relevant to today’s world?
Winning!
I haven’t read the book, but that’s what I’m gathering from this excerpt.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Fornication-Christianity-Hellenistic/dp/0520235991
“If the husband married her SPECIFICALLY because she was a virgin, then too bad for him. Picking a wife simple based on the state of her vagina is questionable.”
Yup. He had criteria, she deceived – “too bad for him.”
Awesome response! /s
And that’s what having a preference for low-N women is all about – “the state of her vagina” – NOTHING TO DO with the coorilations to character! /s
It sounds like the Fuck Phantom has transoceanic reach.
Mirrellie, we GET that.
What you don’t seem to get is that SOME men would rather be alone than with a slut.
Much like you’d rather be alone than shack yourself up to an ugly guy the rest of your life.
“If the husband married her SPECIFICALLY because she was a virgin, then too bad for him.”
Of course because his desires are “childish” and he doesn’t deserve to get what he wants. However her desires are simply to be a good wife, so obviously she is right.
*rolls eyes*
This is absolutely freaking ridiculous. If I want to marry a woman that is exactly 5’8″ it is my damn right to demand it, regardless of how stupid you may think it is. If a woman lies to me by wearing lifts and I marry her, it is completely within my right to leave provided I told her up front it was important to me that she be exactly 5’8″. Who the fuck are you to tell other people what they can or can not base thier marriage decisions on?
I love how everyone is defending this “good wife”. I’ll say right here I don’t buy it. She lied to get married, she probably lied about other things. Maybe she even cheated. And even if she didn’t, if I was her husband I wouldn’t believe a damn word she said. Why should I?! She lied to lock him down, so it seems reasonable to believe she lied about everything. There wouldn’t be a decision in our entire 40 year marriage I wouldn’t doubt. And what point is there staying with a wife you can’t trust? None whatsoever.
@Höllenhund
“Can you show me ONE woman, maybe besides Anacaona, either on this site or in the comments to the original article, who did NOT take part in circling the wagons around this lying, manipulative wife?”
I said (bleep) the lying liar.
“She lied big time about something very important to him, and took advantage of his sympathy. I would be SO angry… Even if his view was extreme to her she could have let him find somebody who thought like he did.”
@deti
“What else has she lied about? If she says “nothing else”, why should he believe her? If she says “I love you”, why should he believe her? Why should he believe anything she says? Why should he believe any of her actions and conduct and words are sincere?”
+1
@JP
“(1) Adultery? Nope.
(2) Abuse? Nope.
(3) Brother and sister married? Nope.
No reason to grant a divorce.”
Wait, what kind of deity/belief system forces siblings to stay married? (If my brother’s wife came home with syphilis and another man’s seed in her womb I’d expect him to leave after such lack of respect and care. If my husband started hitting me I’d have to leave because he’d kill me or I’d snap and kill him. But that’s just me.)
@HanSolo
LMAO! Merry early Christmas~
@Olive
Congratulations to your brother~
(and I thought the hymenoplasty was extreme…)
@Mireille
That reminds me – you’re French, right? That is a very important piece of information.
Funny, it’s an individual choice but there is only one “mature” choice.
“Funny, it’s an individual choice but there is only one “mature” choice.”
And of course it is the “female centered” choice that is the mature one.
Whatever. Chalk me up as an old, bitter, resentful, hateful, male chauvinist pig that would cut off my nose to spite my face. Because I would have done the exact same thing. Maybe that makes me immature, but I’d rather be immature on my terms than mature by some else’s.
Can we talk about Oops pregnancies and cuckoldry?
Are these also black/white issues for men and yet so much greyer for women? Well he’s a great kid why worry if ‘dad’ wanted to raise his own kids, or didn’t want to be raising another kid, was going to break up with her but felt he had to do the right thing.
Men seem to prefer absolute standards of behaviour more than women.
Gotta love Sai tho
“Picking a wife simple based on the state of her vagina is questionable.”
Finally, the feminist summation: reduce, marginalize, reframe, attack.
Zzzzzzzz
Just one more example of why higher N women should focus on higher N men. It is indeed questionable when only one party to the relationship is concerned about the state of her vagina. In any case, they (husband and wife) both seem a little wacky to me, but reducing it to vagina mileage selection risk is just such a tired position.
@Escoffier:
“Funny, it’s an individual choice but there is only one “mature” choice.”
There’s only ever one correct moral choice in any given moral quandry.
You’re only ever supposed to choose the right choice because choosing the wrong choice is stupid.
@Can we talk about Oops pregnancies and cuckoldry?
Sure.
If you don’t want to risk pregnancy, don’t have sex. Oops pregnancies are fine.
Cuckoldry is wrong. Put the other guy on the hook for child support and let the man decided whether to stay married or raise the child.
Problems solved.
“There’s only ever one correct moral choice in any given moral quandry.”
Wrong.
@Sai:
“Wait, what kind of deity/belief system forces siblings to stay married?”
Those are good reasons to get divorced.
I’m just sick of no fault, “I need to go find myself and move the children 200 miles away” immature stupidity.
I think that we’ve pretty much dissolved civil marriage anyway. It’s incoherent at this point anyway.
Once the post-modern era is over, we’ll chose some new overarching cultural structure.
Give it about 200 years or so to dissolve and then start gelling.
@JP
”
Those are good reasons to get divorced.
I’m just sick of no fault, “I need to go find myself and move the children 200 miles away” immature stupidity.”
Oh! I get it. Yes, the ‘finding self’ isn’t fooling anybody any more.
So morality matters in some cases, but dishonesty ain’t no big thing because they had a marriage that lasted until the truth came out? I’m more interested in the fem opinion TBH
If you don’t want to risk pregnancy, don’t have sex. Oops pregnancies are fine.
Things are pretty simple on your planet, I see. No pesky condoms splitting, no ‘she said she was on the bc pill’, doc said we couldn’t have kids so we took no precautions
With your sophisticated outlook on life I reckon I know who you voted for
Well, I haven’t weighed in on the matter thus far, but here is my opinion: it’s questionable how happy that guy was in the marriage if he walked out after 40 good years, but the marriage itself was predicated on a lie, a big lie, and that is enough to dissolve it. If I were in his shoes, I would have probably reacted the exact same way. I don’t even know if I would have been able to recover.
But of course my opinion doesn’t count and Mireille’s opinion represents that of all women ~
I think that you’re probably right SayWhaat. Sai agrees too but then she’s smart.
The Mail seldom gets caught lying, but they are legendary for spinning things to generate as much outrage as possible – the daily hate. “It’s like spending time in a mental hospital” – tshirt available on the daily mash, I believe
Once again, it’s not just the lie, though the lie was enormous. I mean, seriously, ladies, try to imagine discovering after 40 years that your husband was not who he said he was, that he deliberately lied to you about something fundamental to your sense of who he claimed to be, who you thought he was. You all keep citing 40 years as if it’s exculpatory for her. Really? From my vantage point, the longer a lie is maintained, the longer you deceive me, the more betrayed I feel.
But worse than the lie was her total lack of remorse.
And much worse than that was her response to his distress. She basically said, F-U, get over it.
I don’t believe I did that, so I’ll assume that this is not referring to my recent comments and let the other ladies here voice their INDIVIDUAL opinions and let them speak for THEMSELVES.
Forgive my being too blunt. When I said “too bad for him” it is that using one SOLE criteria to filter for a spouse is not very smart as in there needs to be more components to this. That would have been his mistake. If her lack of virginity and subsequent lie are the only reasons he considered before walking out, I’ll repeat it “too bad for him”. However, if there are other factors that warrant his reluctance, then this is another topic.
This is not a gendered observation, rather a rational one. I’d say the same to Cooper’s mom when she told her husband that she’d have made a different choice. Too bad for her as well! Virginity and money are not reasons enough, in my book, to marry anyone, male or female, period. They’re merely accessories to marriage itself.
When I said “mature”, I wasn’t invalidating his feeling of betrayal or his disapointment; I cautioned him to observe this situation with a mature perspective, in regard of what he built all these years with his wife. Doing otherwise and throwing it altogether without a second thought would be foolish, but that’s my opinion. It is clear that he is in his right to be mad and/or sad. He’ll need some time to recover from it and decide if the situation is salvageable or not. My advice to him is that she stuck with him for 40 years, would be dumb to discard that union without an afterthought.
I’d like to point out that my comments are only my opinions. I’m not trying to cater to any males here and couldn’t care less if some are heartbroken, feel disgust (hummm, Mike C) or are simply baffled (Ted D, I’m looking at you lol); someone even said “hate” (Lokland). Nor am I trying to represent all women. This is my opinion as a human being. That woman had no right to lie (who has a right to lie, really?) however it is done. How they deal with this is what, to me, will reveal if their marriage was a lie, and after 40 years together, I highly doubt it was. Since nobody here has actually lived through a 40 years marriage, moderation in our speech should be the norm. It really easy for us to cheer while she burns on the pyre, no glory in that!
Some people marry as virgins, get bitter, lie and cheat; some lie, get married and are stellar spouses; some other do none of that and either live happily either after or divorce. The point is life is not that fary tale we were told. Let’s deal with it.
Skim, skim, skim, holy boring tangent. However, as I was about to close the page, this occured to me:
Ask yourself this – you find, after 40 years of marriage, that your husband has an ex-wide, plus two kids he’s never told you about, after repeatedly assuring you he’s never been married and has no kids. On top of that, cheated on the wife with you, so you were unknowingly complicit in the divorce. Through good lawyering, he’s never spent a dime on them, or visited them, so, all of that is “just in the past”, and so technically it has never affected you.
Does it erase 40 years of good times? No, but I think the lie is big enough to definitely reconsider whether a future is desired with that person.
Saywhaat
“Well, I haven’t weighed in on the matter thus far, but here is my opinion: it’s questionable how happy that guy was in the marriage if he walked out after 40 good years, but the marriage itself was predicated on a lie, a big lie, and that is enough to dissolve it. ”
I too, question how happy he was. If my hypothetical husband told me a lie, and 40 years from now he came clean, I am trying to think of a reason I’d leave him if we’ve been happily married. Lied about N? No male equivalent, but say, he lied about finishing high school? I’d stay. Cheated before we got engaged? I’d stay.
Anything short of having sex with a relative, or cheating while we were married, or harming anyone physically, I cannot think of a reason I’d leave a man based on something that happened even 15 years prior, not alone 40. Not one reason.
I see why the guys are pissed about it, but I can’t fathom a reason why I’d be upset enough to do what he did. Unless we’d been unhappy with each other the whole time.
Off the cuff,
That example is wrong imo. If he was already married and committed bigamy we’d have an issue. Sure I’d be sad he never disclosed those facts; however if he never neglected our home/couple/children, no reason to discard a husband over this. Where I’d have pause is his denying his children of a father, which in my opinion is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter what issues you have with the women of your life, you don’t just discard your kids because you do not favor the woman anymore. Who cares if he had kids before? Some women are not frightened by that and would accept any disclosed kids.
I never advocated against reconsidering, far from it.
Escoffier #1342, yeah that happened to me with my ex. Hence, he’s no longer in my life. So I get it. But kids weren’t in the equation for me. I was only 24 and still young. Not sure what I would do in the long marriage with kids scenario.
Being lied to like that sucks, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
@Olive and Sai
Fah who for-aze
Dag who dor-aze
Welcome Christmas
Bring your cheer
Not sure what I would do in the long marriage with kids scenario.
Well in the case at hand, kids are not a factor anymore they are grown and out of the house so maybe the timing is part of the reason he left is only between him and her at this point,YMMV.
« 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 »