The Man Who Loved A Woman And Ended Up With A Mommy
It's a story I hear almost weekly: She said she didn't want children, but it turns out she lied. Simon Jones writes in the Times of London about how he fell for a high-powered sexual woman who pretty much disappeared after the baby came:
Anna was a delightful baby and I fell in love with her. Frances, however, was totally consumed by motherhood. I longed for my glamorous career girl to reappear. I took takeaways home for dinner, and made sure our cleaner upped her hours. But Frances just sat around in her dressing gown reading baby-care magazines and books, or comparing notes with other new mothers.I realise that complex factors kick in after a birth, such as tiredness and self-image issues, and that high levels of the hormone prolactin while breastfeeding reduces a mother's libido. But shouldn't women want to overcome this?
Six months after having Anna, Frances told me she wanted to take a five-year break from work and have another child. I was adamant that I wanted no more children. I couldn't help feeling short-changed. By now she was overweight and unfit and didn't care about the way she looked. Her entire life was centred on organic baby food and playgroups. Our home was always full of strange women talking endlessly about nappies, baby food and the right sort of stimulation.
Don't get me wrong, I love Anna, but I also get on with the rest of my life -- work, relationships and other interests. I'm the same person I've always been. But for all the talk of multitasking, it's the mothers who become completely one-dimensional. It's ironic, when being sexy and attractive is what got them pregnant in the first place. And it's not only Frances who's become a boring frump -- it's depressingly common to see clever, attractive women become parenting bores. You can spot them at parties, in baggy clothes and making no effort to be interesting to men. Surely the ultimate mummy could still be a sex cat, if no longer a sex kitten?
I ended up getting the stimulation I needed from someone else. Maria had joined the hospital where I worked. She was a few years younger than me, beautiful, clever and sexy. It took only one illicit coffee for our affair to start. We took appalling risks, having sex in store cupboards and empty conference rooms.
It wasn't only about sex, however, mind-blowing and addictive though that was. Maria was challenging, intelligent, great fun and a poignant reminder of the beginning of my relationship with Frances. Because, despite everything, I still loved Frances. I tried to engage her interest in work. I took home champagne and flowers, bought her jewellery and perfume. But she no longer wanted to connect with me on a sexual or romantic level. Then Maria told me that an affair was no longer enough for her -- that if I didn't leave Frances, it was over. I told Frances, who was surprisingly upset and actually punched me, the first physical contact we'd had in months -- and we ended up having amazingly passionate sex.
The next morning, I moved in with Maria. But it wasn't long before she also suggested marriage. I couldn't believe it. I had a strong sense of déjà vu. She'd often decried the way Frances had become so maternal and domestic, claiming that wasn't for her -- now she was heading the same way. We got married. Then she said she wanted a baby. I repeated all the protests I'd made to Frances. The arguments raged until Maria eventually said she would leave me and have a child with someone else, and I gave in.
Ten years after leaving Frances for Maria, I wonder why I bothered. Frances is still frosty with me and I have a horrible feeling that my daughter Anna doesn't actually like me very much. And Maria? Nine months ago, after giving birth to my second daughter, Sarah, she has turned into another version of Frances, obsessed with motherhood in just the same way.
Has all the aspiration and ambition they applied to their careers been transferred to parenting -- or did they only pretend to be career-orientated? Both of them have made themselves martyrs to motherhood, sacrificing everything from keeping fit -- what's wrong with walking a brisk four miles with a buggy, if you can't bear to leave the baby in a creche? -- to the occasional night out.
Frances lied to me about wanting a child. Maria might have done so as well. I can't believe how naive I've been. I don't know how long Maria and I will last, but I know one thing: from now on, I'm putting myself first. I'll never trust a woman again, no matter what they promise.
A word to those who might follow in Simon's footsteps: Don't want children? Married to a child-demanding screamer -- formerly a woman who claimed she didn't want kids? Get a divorce -- before you get her pregnant.
This guy sounds kinda like a goofball.
> Frances lied to me about wanting
> a child. Maria might have done
> so as well. I can't believe
> how naive I've been.
That's quite switcherooni across three short sentences. The guy basically concedes that he had his eyes off the ball. Women don't turn into babymaking zombies overnight. He basically concedes he tried to pin them down with "promises" instead of listening thoughtfully to where their heads are at. I'm gonna guess that even in the early days these women weren't talking eagerly about books or travel or art or meeting people or current events.
In a brilliant piece on the infantilization of popular culture in Spy years ago, a writer named Paul Rudnick said the adult pleasures are complexity, sex, conversation and tailoring. Keeping that in mind when dating has minimized the number of misbegotten marriages.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 22, 2009 2:22 AM
So, what is he? The helpless slave of lust? If someone turns him on and she's receptive to the idea, he's physically incapable of turning on his heel and walking away?
Sounds to me like the priorities are loud and clear. He wants no children. Fine. So, why doesn't he act on it?
Marriage doesn't necessarily mean a desire for children, but if that's his deal-breaker, then he should have shown a little self-respect and ended it the first time she indicated she wanted it.
Yeah, me, too. But mine came from seeing some moron repeat the same mistake he already made.
So, she's either had a radical change of heart or she's a schemer. And you're a schlub that she can pressure into doing things you don't want: the veritable slave of hormones with no will of your own. How do I not pity thee? Let me count the ways.
That would be way #1.
At this point, you're merely an idiot who walked into a correctable error. Divorce lawyer, cite fraud as the reason. Walk away.
Moron. Instead of trying to talk someone out of wanting what she wants, free her up to go get what she wants.
So in other words, even though you're so stupid that you can't see your way out of this reparable predicament, she basically spells out the escape route for you. Yet, you're still too dumb to see where the solution is.
Sorry, you deserve to be stuck where you are. The only regret I have is that you've now passed on DNA that is unworthy of perpetuity...twice. How is the race going to improve with idiots like you making babies left and right? Can't you clowns do something worthwhile, like amusing the rest of us by competing for Darwin Awards? Solves your (and our) problems and provides the rest of us with some good old-fashioned sadistic humor.
But of course, since you'd likely not appreciate the necessary sacrifice to make yourself a voluntary candidate for a Darwin Award (selfish, selfish, selfish), perhaps you'd care to undergo sterilization? Not quite as reliable as removing yourself from the gene pool, but it does make producing an improbable "Unsuitable DNA Recipient #3" a more forgivable offense. At least this time you took a reasonable precaution...two kids too late, but at least you'll have tried.
Patrick at March 22, 2009 2:38 AM
I'll never trust a woman again, no matter what they promise.
Translation: I was an ass. And a big girl's blouse. Twice.
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 2:47 AM
The Goddess writes:
Translation: I was an ass. And a big girl's blouse. Twice.
Always good to have a linguist so fluent in Cretin handy. Not that I would suggest that you are a "native speaker," Amy -- far from it -- but your linguistic skills do come in handy.
If that jerk ever emails you again, you have my permission to send any of my comments his way.
Patrick at March 22, 2009 2:55 AM
since you'd likely not appreciate the necessary sacrifice to make yourself a voluntary candidate for a Darwin Award.
Technically, once you've passed on your DNA -- you can never be a DA winner, short of taking out the kids.
Jim P. at March 22, 2009 3:47 AM
"I told Frances, who was surprisingly upset and actually punched me "
At that point he should have called the police, and she should be charged with domestic violence. Also he should get a restraining order.
Overall the article sounds a little suspicious to me..it sounds too "make-believe" or something. Did anyone else get that feeling?
Norman L. at March 22, 2009 4:28 AM
He doesn't want kids? A vasectomy would solve a lot of problems.
bradley13 at March 22, 2009 5:14 AM
Hear, hear, Bradley13. That was the first thing that came to my mind. But why should a person take responsibility for themself when they can whine instead?!
Micki at March 22, 2009 5:21 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Modern England.
Completely enervated, unable to take control of his life, unwilling to say no and mean it.
He's the very definition of Pussy Whipped. And if Mark Steyn is to be believed, most of England is just like him.
brian at March 22, 2009 6:10 AM
"It's ironic, when being sexy and attractive is what got them pregnant in the first place."
No, ASSHAT, it's YOUR WILLIE that got them pregnant in the first place. I can guess why these women wanted to have babies. REAL babies are small, soft, mewling and utterly dependent beings that you bond with anticipating and providing for their every need. LW seems to be a larger version of a baby, just more irritating in his desperate efforts to keep tapping it. Stay hot and sexy for me! Don't change! Ever! Don't become someone else who might sacrifice that which I value for someone else's needs since mine are what your life should revolve around!!!
"I ended up getting the stimulation I needed from someone else." Because ultimately, my needs are more important and worth torpedoing my family for.
I will concede one point. It doesn't take much to be a yummy mummy once you get past the postpartum. You DO need to keep your junk together to keep your partner interested. Unless you have a hormonal imbalance there's no excuse. An employer wouldn't let you come to work looking like a slob, why should you expect your spouse to put up with it? Hmmmmm......Perhaps these women WANT him to bug off, considering who he really is.
Juliana at March 22, 2009 6:27 AM
Men shouldn't lie about being vasectomized... It's as manipulative as anything you can do to a woman. I always get the word out early on. Only once was the response unpleasant [from a woman in her mid-40's!], but that made it clear that the announcement had to happen even earlier.
Oh hell, go read the whole column from where I stole the cartoon. When you get to this passage...
| Single men who get vasectomies
| not only don't want kids, but
| they're hostile to the very
| idea of having kids.
...Think also of these words, from the Rudnick piece:
| Childhood is not a utopia but a
| holding pen; the good stuff
| comes later, when you're ready,
| when you've earned it. Children
| look abysmal in evening clothes
| and are problematic in theaters,
| restaurants and concert halls;
| as a rule, children are useless
| after 4:00 p.m.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 22, 2009 6:35 AM
What a dumb $#&%. Apparently men need to be taught to say the word "no," too!
Melissa G at March 22, 2009 7:18 AM
Keep in mind that this is in a UK paper and therefore there is a better than average likelihood that this story is made up - at least in part.
Also I'm always suspicious of writers who string together superlatives like that. The strike me as passionately mind-blowingly stupendously full of it.
Mack at March 22, 2009 7:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/22/the_man_who_lov.html#comment-1639667">comment from JulianaAn employer wouldn't let you come to work looking like a slob, why should you expect your spouse to put up with it?
Women do this because they can, encouraged by feminism. According to feminism (damn your hard-wiring, boys), you're supposed to lust after her solely for what's within -- like 80 extra pounds of pregnancy fat that one woman refused to lose...causing me to get fired from the Ithaca journal when I wrote about it, "A man doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a minivan."
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 7:42 AM
How do people with such unrealistic expectations keep avoiding the reality check?
Do they get into the relationship thinking nothing is going to change?
Well, I can thank this guy for making me feel more intelligent.
brian at March 22, 2009 7:45 AM
"Do they get into the relationship thinking nothing is going to change?"
Sure. Or you can go into a relationship hoping that it WILL change. Both approaches are doomed to failure, but if you keep at it, if you just keep hoping!!! (sarcasm). You know what they say, Hope in one hand and *@#$ in the other, see which fills up fastest.
Brian, not to make light of your intellect (I truly enjoy your posts even on the occasions where I don't agree with you), but this guy would make most root vegetables feel smarter.
Juliana at March 22, 2009 7:57 AM
What the first wife did or didn't do does not allow him to cheat. And everything past that is his own damn fault. Surely this has to be made up.
Other than that, all the other comments have covered this nicely. Except oh-Amy, a man who "buys a sports car not expecting it to turn into a minivan" and lets the fact that it does ruin his relationship is an utter moron. Everyone ages. No one stays hot and attractive. And there are some damn hot fat girls out there, and plenty of men who appreciate them. If he is not one of those men, he had plenty of chances to communicate that, and leave if necessary. Cheating was dumb and immature.
momof3 at March 22, 2009 8:37 AM
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm right there thinking this has some embellishment to it, although since it doesn't make anyone look good, it might be as written...
but yes, the hard cold truth is that if you don't want children you have to get snipped. Then, if you are with a woman that has problems with that... well now you know a few things about what she was looking for.
The truth of what CAN happen when a woman nests, yeah it can go that way. Went that way for me. Are you going to blame half the species for what one woman does? Second time around he should have seen that coming. Every step of it. What head's he thinkin' with? Trust but verify? Oh, but then you have to take responsibility for your actions, and you have to be worthy of making a promise to in the first place.
SwissArmyD at March 22, 2009 8:46 AM
>>He's the very definition of Pussy Whipped. And if Mark Steyn is to be believed, most of England is just like him.
An oddly provincial comment from you, brian?
Jody Tresidder at March 22, 2009 8:55 AM
I agree with the others, I think the story sounds very made up. I sounds like a patchwork of all kinds of individual stories.
This imaginary guy sure enjoys being a victim though. Did he not understand the concept of birth control (one that he had control over, like a condom)? He definitely has to grow a pair.
Sex is hugely important in a relationship, and if women have no interest in it anymore, they should either end the relationship, or stay with him and have an open relationship(if there are kids involved). Either way, they should give the guy his freedom to get sex from someone else.
Chrissy at March 22, 2009 8:59 AM
"The next morning, I moved in with Maria. But it wasn't long before she also suggested marriage. I couldn't believe it. I had a strong sense of déjà vu. She'd often decried the way Frances had become so maternal and domestic, claiming that wasn't for her -- now she was heading the same way. We got married. Then she said she wanted a baby. I repeated all the protests I'd made to Frances. The arguments raged until Maria eventually said she would leave me and have a child with someone else, and I gave in."
What a wuss.
Clue: Vascetomy means never having to say, "No, it's your turn to feed him."
Steve Daniels at March 22, 2009 9:20 AM
"..The arguments raged until Maria eventually said she would leave me and have a child with someone else, and I gave in."
Hahaha... what a knob. Overthinking with both his dick and his heart, his brain completely shut off. No sympathy from me beyond his correct statements on his first wife's attitudes after the kid was born.
Sio at March 22, 2009 10:24 AM
Except oh-Amy, a man who "buys a sports car not expecting it to turn into a minivan" and lets the fact that it does ruin his relationship is an utter moron. Everyone ages. No one stays hot and attractive. And there are some damn hot fat girls out there, and plenty of men who appreciate them. If he is not one of those men, he had plenty of chances to communicate that, and leave if necessary. Cheating was dumb and immature.
The man in that question didn't cheat. And his wife gained 80 pounds during her pregnancy -- an unhealthy gain according to the medical advisor I used for that column. After she had the baby, she refused to even try to lose the weight and told him to just suck it up. Again, I blame feminism - the idea that male sexuality is WRONG for being visually directed. Which makes about as much sense as saying women are WRONG for looking for a "provider." We're driven to do so by our genes.
Furthermore, I see older women in France who are older but take care of themselves. There isn't some French gene that leads to this -- they haven't been ruined by feminism like we have. Women used to understand that it was very important to look attractive for the man in their life. Now they get offended at the mere mention of it.
Here's how it works for me: I look like utter hell while on deadline for my column, but when Gregg had to come by to bring me something one Monday, I got in the shower and got myself together. I take time for nothing else when I'm on deadline, but I took time for this. Looks matter to men, and it's respectful to your partner to meet their needs. Also, kind of smart if you'd like them to hang around.
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 10:29 AM
"How is the race going to improve with idiots like you making babies left and right? Can't you clowns do something worthwhile, like amusing the rest of us by competing for Darwin Awards?"
I disagree. Darwin never said anything about the survival of the smartest or the strongest. It is the survival of the fittest.
To be able to fit in and survive this current economic situation, one must be able to demand compensation for their stupid and reckless actions they caused. The octo mom or AIG is very good example of the survival of the fittest.
Our society practices democracy and the dumb majority rules. And the Darwin's rule is still alive. The LW produced at least two more of him who are carrying his genes, which would fit very well in USA.
Chang at March 22, 2009 10:32 AM
Major screw-up Number One:
"I’d never seen Frances react as she did then. She completely lost the plot, screaming that I owed her a child. She admitted she’d lied about not wanting children — she said it was because she loved me and didn’t want to lose me. The next two weeks were dreadful, full of late-night talks and tears. Eventually, against my better judgment, I agreed to go for it."
Major screw-up Number Two:
"We got married. Then she said she wanted a baby. I repeated all the protests I’d made to Frances. The arguments raged until Maria eventually said she would leave me and have a child with someone else, and I gave in."
Yet he says he will never trust a woman again? Seems to me both of these women communicated quite clearly what they wanted, and he was just too big of a pussy to say no. But it's always someone else's fault ...
Pirate Jo at March 22, 2009 10:38 AM
Horse kicks you once, it's the horse's fault
Horse kicks you twice, it's your own damn fault
Elle at March 22, 2009 10:49 AM
I've known a lot of women who don't want sex after kids, and guys that go without it for years. Some females don't make any attempt to "feel sexy" after kids. They get all their physical needs met by the baby.
Science has proven male and females brains are WIRED differently (biochemically) and women who don't understand that men NEED to have sex to get their "love chemicals" flowing need to learn this.
This guy didn't take control of his life and should take the blame for his problems, but there IS truth to the idea that wives should also attempt to meet the needs of their husbands (and not just expect their husbands to meet all THEIR needs with nothing in return).
Tricia at March 22, 2009 11:08 AM
Other than saying Anna was a delightful baby and he fell in love with her, he mentions nothing about his [two] children (Anna would be ten now) or his role in their upbringing or care.
"Don't get me wrong, I love Anna, but I also get on with the rest of my life -- work, relationships and other interests. I'm the same person I've always been. But for all the talk of multitasking, it's the mothers who become completely one-dimensional."
From this passage, I get that his wants came first. He hung out with his friends, worked late, made time for his hobbies, had an affair, etc. Bringing home take-out and increasing the maid's hours were his only contribution to helping out with childcare.
Frances did all the nappy changes, baby care, etc. Maybe the reason she was so obsessed with baby care books is that she was the only one doing any of it. Thanks to his narcissism, childcare was her new full-time job.
Sorry, bub, but once there's another person walking around with your DNA your life changes. If you're the one doing all the bacon bringing, you're certainly entitled to your share of the credit. But bringing home take-out after the child's asleep and paying the maid doesn't put you in the child rearing hall of fame.
Conan the Grammarian at March 22, 2009 11:14 AM
Excellent point, Conan. Your observatons probably shed some light into why his daughter Anna "doesn't like him very much."
Pirate Jo at March 22, 2009 11:19 AM
He didn't cheat? Was I misreading the part that said he met his needs for superlative-filled sex elsewhere and then moved in with her? WHat is that?
I gain 40-60 pounds per pregnancy. Unhealthy according to the "guidelines", but resulting in very healthy babies. Birth weight is as important to whether as baby will be healthy as gestational age is in many ways. Keeping a slim pregnancy is just dumb. Much like our BMI scale: people on the high-normal to low-overweight side have better survival rates of every single illness than people in normal or low. We aren't, as as whole, meant to be super skinny, or obese. And I say this as someone who tends to be-by nature-in the lower end of normal. And I do lose the weight. It's easy for me. I can see not having the time if you're a person it does not come easy for.
Anyway, he is selfish and stupid. These women told him what they wanted which was not what he wanted, and he gave it to them anyway, and then childishly felt resentment for it instead of owning himself and his actions. There's just nothing else here. Amy feels pity for the oddest people.
momof3 at March 22, 2009 11:28 AM
What the first wife did or didn't do does not allow him to cheat. -MOMOF3
One question, if she was so uninterested in sex with him, why whould she care?
Isnt it funny how sex is so unimportant in sexless relationships until one partner decides to get their needs met elsewhere?
lujlp at March 22, 2009 11:31 AM
>>He didn't cheat?
No
>>Was I misreading the part that said he
>>met his needs for superlative-filled
>>sex elsewhere and then moved in with her?
No
>>WHat is that?
Its called moving on, if the wife refuses to have sex at all is that not cheating in a sense as well?
Refusing to met a partners needs is no different if its done via a spouse cheating or a spouse refusing affection.
If this story is to be belived she checked out of the relationship first
lujlp at March 22, 2009 11:36 AM
This is a perfect advocacy story for vasectomy; you don't want any more children? Do yourself a favor and get an appointment with a urologist.
For the rest, I have nothing to add to the numerous and enlightened comments preceding mine.
Toubrouk at March 22, 2009 11:45 AM
I have a horrible feeling that my daughter Anna doesn't actually like me very much.
I can't imagine why. "Sorry, dear, but Mummy's putting too many of your needs before mine, so I'm going to skip out on parenting you altogether so I can get my rocks off with a woman who reminds me of your mother before she ruined herself having you. Did I mention I'd be happier if you and your half sister had never been born?"
This from the same guy who was surprised that his wife was upset when he admitted he'd been having a long term affair. I'm thinking he's not very tuned in to the feelings/wants/needs of others, which might have more than a little to do with how he got himself into the situation in the first place.
Years ago, I made the choice to leave a man who was adamant about not wanting to be a father. My feelings for him aside, I knew I wanted children someday, and I knew I wanted them with someone who ALSO wanted children--I never want my kids to have to wonder whether Daddy is happy they're alive. Ironically, the ex ended up getting his next girlfriend (who also supposedly didn't want children) pregnant, and now is saddled with two, neither of which was planned. If nothing else, I am content knowing that I was never the one to trap him in the domestic web. Also, I am happy to say that when my first child arrives, my husband will be as happy and excited to welcome him/her as I will be.
mse at March 22, 2009 12:15 PM
MSE-
"before she ruined herself having you."
The accuracy of this is equal parts horrifying and stunning. Kids can usually figure everything out about their parents' relationships when they themselves reach adulthood. Anna is gonna REALLY hate her daddy someday.
juliana at March 22, 2009 12:34 PM
What a loser pussy! The cheating f**k deserves to be dragged around by the balls.
I thank Amy and the other ladies who suggest that keeping the "chassis" in good shape is something women should attempt to do, if they want to keep their relationship (and health) good -- or simply to keep their relationship.
Women should also keep in mind the encouraging fact that, with the men who already love them, a little effort, even, goes a long way toward keeping them special in their mens' eyes, and hearts.
As for a "duty" to look good, and not take sexual attraction for granted, men should also remember that a gut, b.o., love handles and man-tits are not the biggest turn-ons, either!
Finally, I thank Amy and the ladies because no man can suggest such a thing without calls from feminists that he be hung by his privates until he adopts a less "misogynistic" mind set! :
Jay R at March 22, 2009 12:44 PM
"men should also remember that a gut, b.o., love handles and man-tits are not the biggest turn-ons, either!"
Jay R- I could say that you owe me a new keyboard. Coffeesnork. But I'll leave it considering that we ladies owe you thanks in return for your observation. I wonder what shape the LW is in, or does he think he gets a pass since he's God's gift to warthogs?
I'm going to go clean out the rest of the coffee that's still stuck up in my nose. Gah.
Juliana at March 22, 2009 1:13 PM
I agree this dork could have taken some initiative himself. But he does make an interesting point, that women agreed to marriage on one basis, and then changed their minds; and that after childbirth, they were interested in nothing else whatever. I think this is totally to be expected.
We have a nursery rhyme that goes like this:
The farmer's in his den/The farmer's in his den/e-i-adio the farmer's in his den.
The farmer wants a wife/The farmer wants a wife/e-i-adio the farmer wants a wife.
The wife wants a child/The wife wants a child/e-i-adio the wife wants a child.
The child wants a dog/The child wants a dog/e-i-adio the child wants a dog.
We all pat the dog/We all pat the dog/e-i-adio we all pat the dog.
... accompanied by children in a ring; first a boy goes in the middle as the farmer, he chooses a wife, she chooses a child, and the child chooses a dog, and everyone pats the dog.
OK, that's a bit of a diversion (though great fun) but I think it is an expression of folk wisdom. Women want babies. There are exceptions - but they are exceptions. Why should we be surprised? Why should this dork be surprised?
Norman at March 22, 2009 1:34 PM
momof3, I think you're confusing this story about the Brit who cheated on his wife and married his lover with Amy's story/column about the guy who bought a sports car when his wife gained 80lbs after pregnancy and didn't care about sex/losing weight.
Also, one thing I don't get about most folks who marry the people they cheat with is, they cheated on their spouse or were willing to get involved with a married person, what does that say about their morals and ethics? Sure there are obvious situations where a marriage/relationship is over but how could a guy marry a gal who cheated on her husband or was willing to bang him while he was married?
Sio at March 22, 2009 1:35 PM
"Women want babies."
No, Mother Nature want babies. Women are simply the tools SHE uses to get HER goals accomplished.
There is a reason why women become less desirable to men as they age. It is simply they are no longer useful to HER.
SHE will make sure the younger and reproductive women will get the most attention from men to make sure HER agenda accomplished. This reality has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
"It is what it is." You either play by HER rule or you don't play at all.
Chang at March 22, 2009 1:57 PM
Momof3 writes:
You're conflating this story on Simon to an old column of Amy's. The woman in the column was slim and gained wait during her pregnancy. Her husband was buying her clothes in her old size "for when the weight comes off."
The woman claimed she accepted herself as she was now, and was looking for a way to communicate that "this is the way it's going to be from now on."
Instead, Amy said (essentially) that her husband's tastes were his tastes and the only flexible item in the equation was what the scale said when she got on it. In other words, she needs to lose the weight.
Amy apparently got a firestorm of protest letters for her answer on this column, and responded to one who put to her the hypothetical question that if he were big earning CEO and decided to quit his job to live in a grass hut and comtemplate his navel in abject poverty, would it be okay to leave her husband? (And anybody who knows Amy's stuff would realize that Amy would likely say "yes" to that. Men and women like what they like. And any radical change in that dynamic can reasonably be interpretated as a deal-breaker.
Patricktpa2 at March 22, 2009 1:58 PM
>>As for a "duty" to look good, and not take sexual attraction for granted, men should also remember that a gut, b.o., love handles and man-tits are not the biggest turn-ons, either!
Actually, Jay R,
Forget the gym, I think!
The dutiful quid pro quo here is not the state of a lad's six-pack, it's the state of his salary.
Remember Amy's formula (above)? Again, I blame feminism - the idea that male sexuality is WRONG for being visually directed. Which makes about as much sense as saying women are WRONG for looking for a "provider." We're driven to do so by our genes.
So if a lady keeps her "chassis" gleaming, to satisfy her man's visually directed sexuality...
...then a man should keep those dollars flowing, to satisfy his lady as a provider!
Jody Tresidder at March 22, 2009 2:00 PM
a man should keep those dollars flowing, to satisfy his lady as a provider
While I'm not disputing that bringing in a steady income is part of being a provider, it is not the end-all be-all of being a man. Judging from the LW's description of his first wife's line of work, it sounds like she was perfectly capable of earning her own living. If flowers, perfume, jewelry, etc. was all it took for her to feel like she was getting her needs met, she could have bought them herself. He posits that he tried to talk to her about work--having already stated that she was focused on the child, and probably not thinking much about work. How did he expect that to go, really? Would it have killed him to try to connect with her on the topic of the baby? It might have shown her he was earnestly trying to be close to her, which may have been more of a turn-on than any number of bouquets.
Nowhere does he mention that he took the time to ask her what SHE wanted from him, or what it would take on his part to make her feel desirable and sexy and ready to jump his bones. Maybe the answer would have been as simple as "some compassion," or "some help with the baby we just produced," or "an unconditional back massage." Instead, he runs out to find a literal replacement, leaving her alone and isolated with the kid.
In no way does this excuse any dishonesty on her part, nor do I think she didn't play a role in the failure of the marriage. But it certainly doesn't sound like he tried very hard to look outside his own perspective. He wanted her, but only a specific version of her. That's not an attitude conducive to a successful, long-term commitment, children or no children.
mse at March 22, 2009 2:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/22/the_man_who_lov.html#comment-1639725">comment from Patricktpa2responded to one who put to her the hypothetical question that if he were big earning CEO and decided to quit his job to live in a grass hut and comtemplate his navel in abject poverty, would it be okay to leave her husband? (And anybody who knows Amy's stuff would realize that Amy would likely say "yes" to that. Men and women like what they like. And any radical change in that dynamic can reasonably be interpretated as a deal-breaker.
Yep! Thanks for clarifying that.
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 3:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/22/the_man_who_lov.html#comment-1639728">comment from Juliana"men should also remember that a gut, b.o., love handles and man-tits are not the biggest turn-ons, either!"
No, but, in general, a man's looks are nowhere near as important to women as a woman's looks are to men (although height is very important to women). And while women look for guys who have potential and are good providers, men aren't jumping to date ugly girls who are rich CEOs.
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 3:17 PM
"And it's not only Frances who's become a boring frump -- it's depressingly common to see clever, attractive women become parenting bores."
Now you see why it was so important to demonize - not merely refute - Sarah Palin: living evidence that you can have everything.
Radwaste at March 22, 2009 3:59 PM
"I ended up getting the stimulation I needed from someone else. Maria had joined the hospital where I worked. She was a few years younger than me, beautiful, clever and sexy. It took only one illicit coffee for our affair to start. We took appalling risks, having sex in store cupboards and empty conference rooms.
It wasn't only about sex, however, mind-blowing and addictive though that was. Maria was challenging, intelligent, great fun and a poignant reminder of the beginning of my relationship with Frances. Because, despite everything, I still loved Frances."
What part of this isn't cheating? It's only moving on IF you end the first relationship FIRST. WHich hey, if a sex kitten is what he requires, he should do. Key word being first.
All that follows is still his idiotic inability to own his own actions. People are allowed to change their minds, on baby having and everything else. YOU are allowed to leave. Not give them what they want then simmer in cheating resentment.
I'll admit, I like men with money. But really, how much sex are those rich ugly men getting after they say I Do to the sexpot? I doubt much. I can't fake desire forever, and neither can any other woman. My DH is average-looking, and short. I am 5'10" and thin when not preggers, and did some casual modeling so am pretty decent looking. He makes me laugh, and we both like the same geeky things like Lord of the Rings and Clash of the Titans. That's why I'm with him, and we both have the same rather conservative outlook and both wanted kids.
momof3 at March 22, 2009 4:05 PM
Whether or not the failure to provide physical & sexual affection from one party to another in a marriage is "permission" to cheat...well it is something of a hollow debate.
However the refusal to provide physical & sexual affection by one towards the other, does make "cheating" inevitable sooner or later.
And with all due regard to the momof3...believing otherwise...expecting otherwise...well that is no less unrealistic & immature.
Human beings have needs...all of us, included in those needs are sexual desires, physical affection and comfort from someone of the (usually opposite) gender. If one member of a married couple refuses to provide that, it WILL be sought out elsewhere.
I hate to make the argument, because the guy strikes me as something of a douchebag...but yeah, I'd say she did pretty much give him permission to "cheat". She doesn't want sex...well and good, but what is he supposed to do in the meantime, lop his nuts off?
------------------------------------------
Far as the rest goes...I have to wonder if the douche bag wasn't a decent guy at one point. I have to ask myself what his relationships were like outside of the childcare subject. We can call him a pussy or a douche all day long...but amongst American men, the husband who gives in to his wife's constant desires for this or that, in the hopes of having his loving mate back, is a very common figure. We don't like to admit it, but I'd wager dollars to donuts that almost every adult male here has done so at some point.
My guess is that he was a "relatively" decent guy, who was happy childless, perhaps loved his girlfriend, loved her as a wife, but had no idea just how a child would change not only his life, but his wife, and their relationship dynamic.
Miss Alkon has stated she does not plan on children because she "knows what goes into raising them." to borrow a phrase from one of her previous blog entries some time back. I would guess that this man did not, was trusting & hopeful, and gave way to the women in his life to get back the versions of them that he enjoyed being with...instead of moving on before there was another life in the picture.
Last guy who should be a dad...he should have been some other dad's bar buddy when that guy's wife was pissed off over the toilet seat being up. At least the author was honest about not wanting kids.
Yeah...he's a douche bag now, no question...I could never put the desire for my old life ahead of the growth, happiness, and security of my little angels (and yes, even I sometimes miss the carefree times). Clearly, he wanted very much to do so.
But the point must be made that he wouldn't BE such a douche today...if it weren't for the (lies?) and badgering of the two he went for.
This picture is made up of many ugly pieces, we'd be unwise to forget that.
Robert at March 22, 2009 6:59 PM
"And with all due regard to the momof3...believing otherwise...expecting otherwise...well that is no less unrealistic & immature."
I suppose expecting a partner to admit they are unhappy and leave, rather than cheating, is unrealistic and immature. It's just so much easier to lie, no? Is refusal to have sex a break in the marriage vows? I don't remember vowing to give it up every X days, but I'll agree for the sake of argument that it is. If your partner breaks your marriage vows, you leave. It's not liscense (or the adult thing to do) to break them too.
"But the point must be made that he wouldn't BE such a douche today...if it weren't for the (lies?) and badgering of the two he went for."
I'm still not seeing the lying. They both admitted to him, prepregnancy, they now wanted kids. He obligingly deposited the necessary sperm, and then he bitches about it? No. Everyone has a right to change their minds about subjects. They both did so, and admitted it to him rather than ooops the BC. They may not have done the admitting in a really mature fashion, but they were honest, and he had the chance to leave. Twice. And didn't. Twice.
And no fucking shit, dumbass LW, that your daughter (and trust me, it will be all the kids soon) doesn't like him. Who would?
He's shocked that the first wife is still frosty to him? Classic narcissist-other people don't matter as long as he gets what he wants at that moment. He can't even grasp what he did wrong.
momof3 at March 22, 2009 7:13 PM
I have the suspicion that Simon Jones is a woman. The word-choice, and phrasing don't seem right (e.g. martyrs to motherhood). And the perspective is more typical of that of a woman (e.g. It took only one illicit coffee for our affair to start. , ..making no effort to be interesting to men , Surely the ultimate mummy could still be a sex cat, if no longer a sex kitten?).
And the episodes (s)he describes are reminiscent of the sort of thing you'd read in a pulp romance(e.g. and [ Frances ] actually punched me, the first physical contact we'd had in months -- and we ended up having amazingly passionate sex.).
Perhaps a man's story was used as the basis for this piece, and this was fabulized by a female writer. But it just doesn't seem like something that a man would right.
Mack at March 22, 2009 7:32 PM
err. write , not right :P
Mack at March 22, 2009 7:33 PM
I have the suspicion that Simon Jones is a woman.
Don't forget, English men talk pretty.
Amy Alkon at March 22, 2009 7:43 PM
Don't forget, English men talk pretty.
Thank you cowboy Amy.
But it's not that the writing seems so effeminate, it just reads like something written from a woman's perspective.
Mack at March 22, 2009 8:09 PM
perhaps, it is better not to get married. full stop.
WLIL at March 22, 2009 10:06 PM
> Women do this because they can,
> encouraged by feminism.
That's kind of a stretch. We all like to make fun of feminism when it's silly, but I bet women have been turning into postpartum zombies for tens of thousands of years, and have always had doofus husbands who couldn't see it coming and only made things worse.
Listen, when we read a piece of 'feminist' rhetoric that clearly misses the target, we see that they're just not capable of the kind of abstraction about human relationships to intend the kind of damage you're talking about.
It's like blaming ESPN for a husband who doesn't put up the storm windows over the weekend like he promised. He wasn't going to be the energetic partner the spouse was looking for anyway, whether it's the NCAA Sweet 16 weekend or not.
There's no truly feminist impulse to deny clumsy husbands the company of a thoughtful woman (or the pleasure of sex). Women (and other feminists) who truly want other women to lead the best possible lives want them in nourishing, gratifying marriages.
> perhaps, it is better not
> to get married. full stop.
Naw, it's best to get married. It's good for the kids and it's good for the rest of us, too: Married people can fix each other's problems so the larger society isn't bothered with them.
The trick is to insist that people marry well.
Apropos de nada, isn't this a great tune? Don't you wish you'd written it? (Too many circuits of the syncopated piano figure, but it's still a heartbreaker.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 23, 2009 12:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/22/the_man_who_lov.html#comment-1639773">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]> Women do this because they can, > encouraged by feminism. That's kind of a stretch
Actually, some silly twit (in a long line of silly twits) and her silly twit blog commenters recently huffed and puffed on her blog about how I pander to the patriarchy by suggesting women look good for the men in their lives. Um, if you want to have a man in your life, you need to look after your looks. Reality, ladies.
Amy Alkon at March 23, 2009 2:28 AM
Re men being shallow for judging women by appearance - when this comes up I now explain that the men are actually programmed to look for the best potential mothers, as shown by youth, health, good childbearing hips, etc. That does not end the discussion but it moves it past the "men are beasts" stage because it brings up "motherhood" and all the outraged wymyn go soft-eyed and tender.
Norman at March 23, 2009 5:29 AM
Regarding the sports car...
In life, we often have to trade the sports car for the minivan (or station wagon). This happens. But we can still at least have a clean, slick minivan with a nice, shiny paint job.
NicoleK at March 23, 2009 6:10 AM
Wah, wah, wah! There's a crybaby here and it ain't Anna.
Baby changed everything? Really? How surprising! No one could have seen that coming. The wonder is that this moron expects his wife to go through something as mind-blowing and earth-shattering as giving birth and motherhood and remained as unchanged by it as he was fatherhood. There's something really fucked up with him because something that big should have affected him.
The wife (both wives actually) were also wrong if we're getting the full story but what the hell, why is he making babies he doesn't want? Then wondering why they don't really like him when he loves material things and his freedom more than them? Think the kid can't tell? She can tell.
I'm agreeing with everyone I normally disagree with on this one. Thank you, Jay R. I can't speak for other women but, hell, looks matter more than money for me. I understand about men wanting women to take care of themselves because I sure as hell appreciate the men who do more than the men who don't. I'm an avid man-watcher and always have been. And I'd rather rely on myself financially. I'd see to it I had my own income to rely on even if I were stupid enough to marry again and his made mine look puny. I do not care to start viewing men as wallets instead of people.
And I agree with momof3. It was cheating. Should have dumped her instead of giving her a baby you didn't want but dumped her before singing I just met a girl named Maria. It actually would have been the kinder, more humane thing. Maybe the guy who mended her broken heart would want babies. And Anna would have had a daddy who actually valued her.
T's Grammy at March 23, 2009 8:00 AM
The guy sounds like an asshole. Commenters above are right: He could've gotten a divorce when the demands for a baby started. And really, what did he expect, as far as lifestyle, when the baby came? You don't get to continue your swingin' lifestyle when you become a parent.
On the other hand, I don't understand why some women let themselves go after the baby. A few pounds? Fine. An extra 15-20% (or more) of body weight? NO, no, no! Why would anyone be OK with looking like a sow? Futhermore, if a man's wife is a chore to be around, he's going to find diversions. Men can stop loving their wives; these things go both ways. Why should he be interested in someone who has no interest in him?
ahw at March 23, 2009 8:07 AM
Ever been through a divorce momof3?
Heh, they ain't pretty. You are quite right when you say it is "easier to lie". I couldn't really say what the author's motivation was.
Did he love his wife and just want sex to be more than a distant memory...but not want to lose her? Did he hope his illicit affair would
rekindle that old spark? He wouldn't be the first to think that. Smart, no, but we're not submitting an IQ test.
Did he do the absolute moral thing and just end the union when the demands for children came up?
No he didn't. He was clearly naive at best. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a narcissist. A douche...sure.
Last guy who should have kids...again sure. Frankly it sounds like he was hoping to save a relationship gone bad.
Actually I'm starting to agree with the commentator who wrote that the author might in fact be female.
The idea of saving a relationship by having a child is not something a man would come up with, and that sounds like exactly what the idea was.
I think momof3, you might have misread the letter though, you overlooked this:
"Frances lied to me about wanting a child. Maria might have done so as well."
That is where the women in question were deceptive.
And yes, a refusal to have sex IS a break in the marriage vows.
Whether you go with the "Love, Honour, & Cherish"
Or the much older, "Love, Honour, & Obey"
Sex isn't called "Making love" for nothing. Sex within a marriage is an act of love, in fact it is the predominant way in which a man knows his wife loves him, that she gives of herself physically. To withold that affection, reject his needs, his desires, is to refute, deny, and BREAK those marriage vows.
You didn't promise to give it up every day at x hour during the week, no, and nobody reasonably expects that every desire will be met every time. But when a woman uses the excuse "The kids aren't asleep" to refuse on Monday night, then "You'll wake the kids", after they're asleep on Tuesday night to refuse him again...and that carries on for not days, not weeks, but months...yes, I WOULD call that a refutation and a break of marital vows. Consistently ignoring and denying one partners physical needs is JUST as bad as stepping outside those vows to get them met elsewhere.
I've had a lot of what romantics call, "empty" or "meaningless", sex over the years, frankly I enjoyed it a great deal, still remember those girls fondly, whether they were dates or escorts, we had fun.
But even I, who has been accused of being cold & distant more than once, was never so satisfied as when it was with a woman that I genuinely loved. A wife who denies her companion that comfort, is not a loving wife, and even if she is not stepping out with others, she is no less unfaithful to her vows and inconsiderate of her mate, than the male counterpart who steps out with a new woman every night.
Robert at March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
"But he does make an interesting point, that women agreed to marriage on one basis, and then changed their minds; and that after childbirth, they were interested in nothing else whatever"
Yeah, I don't know why everyone's being so hard on the guy - according to his story, his first wife even *admitted* to lying to him - i.e. hooking him in on a fraudulent basis and deliberately pulling a bait and switch. This is morally wrong, especially if, as a mother, you purposely bring your own child into a loveless home where you know the relationship is fraudulent and that you deliberately used the man as a sperm donor and wallet.
The second woman is different - she was honest up front. But this is still a common tale, and I've seen it myself a few times - women pretend to be one thing until they've got what they were after, then suddenly change.
Sex in a relationship is not just about a man's "needs", though that is important - a real relationship needs *intimacy* and mutual desire, otherwise it's not even a relationship, it's just two people living together. If you aren't interested in having sex with your partner, you have in effect *rejected* your partner - think about it. (And if you planned to do this from the start, just so you could get pregnant and score a wallet, then that is morally wrong, and yes this happens, and *no*, if it happens via fraud and deception, it is not the man's fault - is a man supposed to just assume that what his partner says is a lie? Isn't that admitting that a man can never take what a woman says at face value?)
DavidJ at March 23, 2009 10:25 AM
Myself: "and I've seen it myself a few times"
I must clarify, not in my own relationships, but in others. And it's usually those who can't wait to make a baby.
Robert: "I've had a lot of what romantics call, "empty" or "meaningless", sex over the years, frankly I enjoyed it a great deal"
Yeah, I certainly can't say I've ever regretted any sex I've ever had. It's definitely *much* better though when within a loving relationship.
DavidJ at March 23, 2009 10:29 AM
"In life, we often have to trade the sports car for the minivan (or station wagon). This happens. But we can still at least have a clean, slick minivan with a nice, shiny paint job"
This is why analogies only work up to a point, then fail. I get your point that you can still have a deep, lasting and loving relationship with a woman who has lost her looks, if the bonds of deep friendship remain sound. But we're more talking about women who are no longer even interested in the man - a complete breakdown of even the friendship portion of the relationship - so it's not even really a relationship anymore. I'm not sure what the car analogy would be. A minivan that is broken beyond pair, perhaps.
DavidJ at March 23, 2009 10:34 AM
Is this supposed to be a cautionary tale against lying, scheming, predatory wanna-be-fat-mothers?
If so, it fails that purpose. Rather, it seems to illustrate a person who refuses to take charge of their life and then blames others.
What a stupid story.
Sheesh at March 23, 2009 11:21 AM
I have been through a divorce. It's hell, and I didn't even have kids and actually probably could have had an annulment based on his lying about everything, even up to the name he signed the marriage certificate with. But hey, at 20 you're dumb about the legal system, and so I am divorced and not annulled.
I suppose I could have just cheated, it would have been so much easier and less expensive. Like that matters as much as a hill of beans. She got married saying she didn't want kids, then she did. Ok, that's either a mind change or fraud, either way you don't have to stick around and make the kid. Much less twice. He is still the really stupid asshole with no real axe to grind here other than his own lazy foolishness. And he (or she) and all like him get no sympathy from me. If anything it's so patronizing to be a justifiable case for homicide-staying with someone to keep them while you cheat, instead of freeing them up to find someone better.
momof3 at March 23, 2009 11:22 AM
"He doesn't want kids? A vasectomy would solve a lot of problems.
Hear, hear, Bradley13. That was the first thing that came to my mind. But why should a person take responsibility for themself when they can whine instead?!"
You're both wrong. Under Common Law he would still be stuck with any bastards sired buy any other man she happened to hook up with, as long as he was her husband when she whelped.
Jim at March 23, 2009 11:38 AM
If the woman has for all intents and purposes already in effect ended the relationship, then I don't see it is really being cheating, since you can only cheat on someone if you're in a relationship (still being married on paper does not mean you are still in a relationship, it's just a piece of paper, the marriage is the relationship, not the piece of paper). If you don't want the man, end it, otherwise why keep the man around? For his money?
DavidJ at March 23, 2009 1:30 PM
I am childfree and very happy about it. I don't want kids, and I don't actually even LIKE kids. In some ways, I'm that guy - I don't want to be tied down and change my life (and that of my spouse).
That all said, the guy's a schmuck. The women are on the evil side (though give them credit for at least telling him and giving him the option to leave, rather than just pulling an "oops" on him), but the guy is too stupid to live.
Maybe we can forgive him the first mistake. But when the second wife does the *exact same thing*, how can anyone not go "hm, giving in and making her happy by having a baby really didn't save my last marriage, so why exactly do I imagine it will do so this time?" Oh noes, she'll leave him! And the problem with that is exactly what? Considering his experience with the first wife, he should have started dancing when she said that she'd do it with another man.
Lauren at March 23, 2009 3:11 PM
Well since everyone's pretending that this article isn't actually written by a woman..
I think that what the author is trying to highlight, is the tendency of some women to be so consumed by child rearing that they become very different people, and also damage their marriages. The male character is simply a foil for this morality tail.
And you do see this happen. It seems that for most women, such changes are just a phase. Once their kids become more independent they return to being normal adults. But for many it's a permanent transformation. The men who are married to these women can find themselves trapped with a wife who's sexless, frumpy, and emotionally immature.
A friend of mine refers to this phenomenon as the Gym Teacher Cult - he's married to one. These women adopt the mannish hairstyles, clothing, and general demeanor of a girls' high school gym teacher. But there's also a weirder cult of 16 4-Ever, where the women revert to the emotional maturity and social behavior of teenaged girls. I don't know why this happens, but I've seen it occur often enough to recognize that it's not uncommon.
The interesting thing that I've noticed is that women who are more 'traditional', in the sense that their behavior and attitudes are associated with traditional feminine roles, seem to handle this transition much better than other women. They seem to be able to strike a better balance between a motherly role and one appropriate to adult interactions.
Mack at March 23, 2009 4:16 PM
A lot of people don't want to have kids in their 20s, and think that will last. Then in their 30s, they change their mind.
I went through a brief phase in my late teens where I thought I would never want to get married and have kids. Now I'm married, and want to have kids.
When you're young and carefree, you want it to last forever. Then you get sick of it, it gets old.
This is why most doctors won't tie the tubes of young women. Because they often change their minds. People like Amy are an EXCEPTION. Not the rule.
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 7:02 AM
Bonds of friendship? That wasn't what I was talking about at all, David!
It was more along the lines of, yeah, people get old, but they can still do their hair and wear nice clothes. Even fat people can find nice clothes to wear, and wear make-up!
My point was more, when you're 60 you may not look as good when you are 20, but you can still be good-looking for a 60-year old. You shouldn't pretend you are still a sports car if you are a minivan, but there's no need to be a minivan with a chipping paint job and dents all over and stuffing falling out of the seats and a candy bar wrapper on the floor. If you are a minivan, go to the car wash regularly, get your insides detailed, go for regular tune-ups, and get a nice paint job.
But sure, bonds of friendship are good, too.
As for the cheating thing... if you don't break up with her in advance, it is cheating. Whether you're married or not. As long as you are still in the relationship, it is cheating.
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 7:11 AM
What a crock of shit.
I don't want children either, and I plan to try to stay interesting, attractive, and intelligent until I start drooling and playing with my Jello in the rest home.
Funny, most of the guys I've dated quasi-seriously (because what's the point of dating someone who doesn't share your values?) have also claimed they don't want children or the responsibilities of a family. And yet when I mentioned that maybe they should consider taking the matter into their own hands and be responsible for their own reproductive freedom, one blew up on me (he was in his late 30s and had already been through one abortion with an ex and several scares) and the other one just looked at me like a cow and mooed that he'd never thought of it and was "scared." Oh how precious.
This guy doesn't have anyone to blame but himself. Having an affair is not the way to deal with an unsatisfactory marriage, especially one with kids involved (and I'm not surprised his daughter doesn't like him). And closing your eyes and hoping the problem will go away a second time is just stupid. My sympathy rests with the kids in this case; they didn't ask to have a selfish asshat for a father. Sure, a bait-and-switch isn't fair either, but it takes two to tango.
hamsa at March 24, 2009 9:32 AM
So true, Nicolek. I didn't want kids when younger either, was very against it in fact. Now, I have 3 and am about to pop with #4. Happily. Had I married young to someone with the understanding we weren't going to have them, he would have had the right to leave when I changed my mind. He would not have had the right to keep mum while banging the hot coworker. Geez.
And yes, you are also right that anything done prior to breaking up officially is cheating.
momof3 at March 24, 2009 11:31 AM
Would he have had the right to cheat if you refused sex out right for months or years?
lujlp at March 24, 2009 12:09 PM
No. He would have had the right to leave.
I have a friend who was in that situation... her boy was holding out with her, it had been 9 months, and so she cheated. She should have fixed things with him or broken up... cheating on him didn't fix the problem.
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 12:21 PM
... I don't mean to imply people should hold out on their spouses. I think people should have lots of sex. Maybe you have a dry spell of a couple of weeks one time, but over all you should be making the effort. Even if you're tired.
Having said that, cheating is still wrong no matter what.
(If you have an open relationship, it isn't cheating).
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 12:24 PM
I can't have sex when preggers. Drs orders, too high risk. So that's 27 months total that DH has had to go without. Doesn't give him the right to cheat. And no, I'm not real good about pleasuring him other ways during that time. I'm huge, exhausted, and bending over is impossible. If sex was all he wanted, I'm sure he'd leave. No one ever has the right to cheat. If, say, one could permanently not have sex, and gave the other permission to fulfill that need otherwise but still be married in all other ways, that's different and not cheating. WHat is so hard about there is never a "right" to cheat?
momof3 at March 24, 2009 2:19 PM
So, given a pregancy lasts 9 months why a 27 month hiatus?
Unless you meant 27 months alltogether rather than all at once.
And was that 27 months betwwen all four pregnacies? Cause that works out to, about 6 month per which is understandable
lujlp at March 24, 2009 2:48 PM
What about The Woman Who Married A Man And Ended Up With A Son?
Or how about the man who promises an equal partnership pre-baby and then disappears weekends to play golf and doesn't change an actual diaper and hangs late at the office because it turns out he can't stand the colicky kid? Sometimes a woman can whirl herself back into shape -- and even go back to work herself and remain mentally stimulating -- and he unexpectedly still doesn't want to be around the kid he too wanted.
Love men, know lots of great dads, but let's not pretend that only women turn out to be something other than they portrayed themselves to be before the vows.
You guys talk a lot about the "feminists" and evil mothers bashing men and fathers. But I've read more women and mom bashing on this blog than I can believe. BOTH men and women can and do behave badly and make stupid judgments.
And momof3: Watch that weight gain (60-plus pounds you said) if you're already high risk. It's an oxymoron to say a gain that size makes healthy babies if it jeopardizes the mom.
JulieA at March 24, 2009 6:09 PM
Julie - we can go anywhere on the internet to see bad men bashed.
This is one of the few places where we can hate on bad women without being called misogynists.
Although if this letter is for real, the guy is (as many people noted) a mendoucheous cockholster.
But then again, both times the women said they didn't want children and he married them under false pretenses.
Of course, were he actually intelligent (and not whipped) he would have walked the first time Frances said "make me big".
brian at March 24, 2009 6:24 PM
Brian - First, props for the word mendoucheous?
And because this is a safe place to bash bad women doesn't mean men should lose all perspective. Women don't look good when they slam men just for being men and the same goes for men who can't stop themselves from saying something nasty about women each and every time.
JulieA at March 24, 2009 6:31 PM
And I meant to use an exclamation point not a question mark, Brian.
JulieA at March 24, 2009 6:32 PM
Mendoucheous cockholster has become my new favorite phrase. I'm in awe.
MonicaP at March 24, 2009 7:21 PM
You can thank the moronosphere for that one.
http://ace.mu.nu
And believe me, there's no loss of perspective here.
brian at March 24, 2009 7:46 PM
JulieA, when not preggers I am a sz 6/8 and 5 ft 10 inches. My weight is hardly a concern of mine. And yes, women hate me for that. Gotta love height and high metabolism. I am high risk because I"m missing a fair chunk of my cervix thanks to HPV. WITH condoms.
"And was that 27 months betwwen all four pregnacies? Cause that works out to, about 6 month per which is understandable"
3 pregnancies, I have twins. And I'll be honest right up front and say it lasts longer. Hopping off the ER table from being gutted and right onto my husband's dick is not real appealing to me. Nor to him either, evidently.
I can say nasty about deserving women with the best of them (pussy-for-rent with 6 kids from drug dealers and octo-idiot for starters) but here are some flat-out women-haters on here. Perhaps for good reason given their pasts, but they're still damaged goods.
momof3 at March 25, 2009 8:11 PM
"What part of this isn't cheating?"
There seems to be some confusion about a discussion about a previous column that started partway through the discussion about this one...
The guy whose wife gained 80 pounds didn't cheat, this one did.
"You guys talk a lot about the "feminists" and evil mothers bashing men and fathers. But I've read more women and mom bashing on this blog than I can believe."
A woman shouldn't stop being a wife when she becomes a mother. Her only topics of conversation shouldn't be baby food and diapers.
"I took takeaways home for dinner, and made sure our cleaner upped her hours. But Frances just sat around in her dressing gown reading baby-care magazines and books, or comparing notes with other new mothers. "
There's nothing wrong with this scenario? Some women really do overdo it. And to say so isn't 'bashing'.
crella at March 27, 2009 5:02 AM
How can someone go 27 months without sex? That's over 2 years! And if you're not going to take care of the other person's needs, you HAVE to give them permission to get sex elsewhere. You would have to discuss it and set up the parameters. You can't just ignore it and pretend there's no problem hoping it will go away. That would guarantee that the other person 'cheats', and also guarantees that you can be the martyr, as the person who was wronged.
If people would act like adults about sex it would make their lives a hell of a lot less filled with DRAMA.
Chrissy at March 28, 2009 7:29 AM
Leave a comment