I'm sure Amy, that you're familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance", so I won't ramble on about that, but I will say it looks to me like you've got a classic case of it with this one. I'd want to ask this woman one question:

What advice would she give to her best friend if that hypothetical woman were seeing a man who treated her like that?

Maybe the guy was a real man once upon a time, but that prince has turned into a frog, and he's nae likely to turn back.

DEAD ON with your advice on this one.

Strange example for this column.... I read it but usually no comments here. This one though seems to me from what I read here, not knowing past that what else the person might have told Amy, is that this woman is a Lost Cause. A veritable waste of time. She is going to lose this guy some day and it will be Her Fault, she will tell people. Then the next guy who treats her so badly will be, again, Her Fault. Some people, and this one seems like it to me, are just looking to be blamed and be victims.

Am I just not communicating right? As usual I like to pick on something a person says and interpret it differently to the way they meant it. You are indeed not communicating right. This is because communication is a two-way street. Your communication failure is that you are not receiving any signals from this man. He is telling you as clearly as he can that he is not interested in you, but you are not getting the message.

Some men - I was one - end relationships by behaving intolerably, until the woman does the breaking up. There are many possible reasons for this; the reason doesn't matter. The message matters, and what you decide to do about it.

Strange example for this column.... I read it but usually no comments here.

I just posted it. "Usually no comments here"? Actually, quite the contrary.

Robert, a terrific book about cognitive dissonance is Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Tavris and Aronson.

I think "usually no comments here" meant he does not usually post any comments here.

"People change over time. I've changed, he's changed. Perhaps the next change will be for the better." This is the kind of shit you get from bad self help books. "You just need to want it badly enough and it will happen" He's not going to change and in his position most people wouldn't. If I could quite my job and go run around the woods for weeks at a time while the wife covers the finances just after nailing the neighbor I might do it to. Well at least think about doing it. The guy has the best of both worlds why the hell would he change.

I'd steal a line from Dan Savage and tell her "DTMFA (Dump the Mother Fucker Already)."

Norman says: He is telling you as clearly as he can that he is not interested in you, but you are not getting the message.

Got that right, brother! The LW is very much in denial. She needs to grow a backbone where her wishbone is. This moron has already wasted enough of her time; she shouldn't be giving him any more of it. Jerk.

When I tried to come up with a list of things I liked about my ex, I finally decided to get out when I couldn't put anything on the list. This woman may not be a lost cause as it took me a long time to come to my realization. I have always sorta understood the concept of not awfulizing things (although I didn't know anything about Albert Ellis until recently)...but I failed to apply it evenly. I didn't awfulize my current situation (this isn't great, but it's not terrible, I can deal with it), but I did awfulize the alternative (if my marriage failed, I'm a failure). That prevented me from thinking rationally about how to solve the problem.

The whole idea of it might get better, next time things will be better because I wish it to be so is a powerful draw for inertia. The older I got though, the more I understood that this isn't a fairy tale, there is no "next time" or "wishing things into existance". This. Is. It. Better make it count. Frustrated Wife...get your ass up and out because the only one responsible for your happiness is you!

My one question would be whether all this constitutes a sudden personality change, which might indicate a mental disorder. But I'm guessing not.

So this LW is Exhibit A for why us guys sit around sometimes whining and moaning about how women say they want something entirely different for what they actually want. I can't help but wonder how many good, nice guys the LW turned down in pursuit of this loser.

Amy, excellent advice as usual. Spot on!
LW needs to dump his ass--like, yesterday. Thank God she DOESN'T have kids with him yet and if she has a grain of sense, she will NOT get pregnant, thinking "This will make things better". (It never does--usually makes the situation worse, or at least, creates a more complicated egress plan that now affects an innocent human being(s)). People don't just wake up one day and decide to be a better person and stop acting like an asshole. LW needs to get the hell out of this relationship--the sooner the better.

Once again, Amy comes down on the side of reason. The LW clearly ia a glutton for punishment. This character she's married to is just callous. Of course when he cheated he begged for forgiveness, the other woman wouldn't be his meal ticket. Marriage takes work. But the work must be done by both parties, and the LW's husband has already shown that he prefers her to be the workhorse. As I see it, hard times happen, but two years of unemployment for a grown man are grounds to show him the door. Adults work whether they like it or not. Ugh, and she wants children with him. Another deadbeat dad in the making.

Obviously, the LW behaves foolishly. She's deluded. That's obvious and uninteresting.

The husband's behavior is interesting, for its femininity: the cliche affair, drifting apart, spending time doing what (s)he wants for a change, treating productive work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants regardless of the wishes of the spouse, telling the spouse to man up about things (s)he doesn't like instead of honestly addressing problems.

Yep. People who act like that have no business being in a relationship. Sure enough.

Anyone want to say what LW means?

"The husband's behavior is interesting, for its femininity:" When did treating the spouse like shit become a parameter of femininity?

"Yep. People who act like that have no business being in a relationship. Sure enough." I agree but it's sign of immaturity or narcissism.

To hiya -- LW = letter writer

When did treating the spouse like shit become a parameter of femininity (vlad)?

The husband is a walking, breathing cliche. With his wife, I bet he watched a lot of Lifetime Network dramas, where everything is OK if it's done in the pursuit of an explosive orgasm or romantic love.

"where everything is OK if it's done in the pursuit of an explosive orgasm or romantic love." He's in the woods by himself. Find me one just one Life Time, We or Oxygen (shiver) movie that has a women drop out of school (the ultimate no-no for feminists) go out into the woods alone (assuming he's not lying) to find herself. To use on of the generalizations about women, they don't go to the bathroom alone but going off alone to the woods is fine. Camping is a male stereo types.

vlad, I simply cannot believe how obtuse you are. That was hilarious, mate. Go ahead and have the last word. lol

I hope this isn't Poo-Jeff/Poo-Martin!

The "martyr wife" is common in families that consider suffering a sign of character. And I can see why she doesn't want to back out now: Once you've put so much time and energy into a relationship, you feel like even more of a failure leaving it. I was this LW about four years ago, and my advice would be: run now, run fast, don't look back. No matter how many quarters you pump into this slot machine, it is never going to pay off.

There's still the misconception that unless he's beating you, marriages fail because you didn't work hard enough or gave up too easily. So it becomes an expression of ego: I have the power to make this better, to change him, to make angels fly out of piles of shit, if I just forgive one more time and do whatever he wants. (And before I inspire any "women suck/men suck" rants, I'm using the masculine pronoun because that's the situation here.)

I have an aunt and uncle who just celebrated their 50th anniversary. He is an abusive asshole who cheated on her right up until his penis stopped working, and she is a doormat. They are held up as the marital ideal in my family because they "survived" it together. I just feel sad for them. A relationship shouldn't be an endurance trial.

oh vlad...its Jeff. He's looking to bait and watch tempers flare so he can sit there smugly making 'tsking' noises about everyone's irrationality. He knows damn well Amy would give the same advice if it was a man writing the letter. That's what pisses him off!

There's still the misconception that unless he's beating you, marriages fail because you didn't work hard enough or gave up too easily. So it becomes an expression of ego: I have the power to make this better, to change him, to make angels fly out of piles of shit, if I just forgive one more time and do whatever he wants (Monica).

In this case, I wonder what went before. Was he a musician and she a groupie? Maybe he was always like this, and she married him knowing it. Maybe he was a rake, and she wanted him to morph into a provider. Maybe he's Narcissus, but she wanted him to be Goldmund. Maybe he feels badly because he can't be what she wants. Maybe her desires are contradictory.

It's clear she's deluding herself, and she should move on. It's not so clear that what's unreasonable now was unreasonable before and visa versa. It might be easier to see that if we reverse the sexes, hence my (admittedly frivolous) Lifetime Network comments.

A relationship shouldn't be an endurance trial (Monica).

LW could take a lesson from advanced economics.

She's unwilling to let the relationship go because she doesn't want to lose her investment.

She needs to rethink the whole thing. This relationship is not an investment. Investments appreciate. This guy is a depreciating asset. What she's put into the relationship is a sunk cost.

Instead of considering how much she's already put into the relationship (because Dog knows that he isn't) she needs to consider the likelihood that further investment of her time and effort will yield a positive outcome.

He's looking to bait and watch tempers flare so he can sit there smugly making 'tsking' noises about everyone's irrationality (moreta).

Jeff -

There's a simple test of what's reasonable in a marriage.

Leaving religion out of it, marriage is an enforceable contract. Pursuant to that contract, most people agree (the "wedding vows") to marital fidelity, in sickness and in health, and all that good shit.

So it's pretty reasonable to say that infidelity is a deal-breaker.

There's acceptable endurance (which I don't think Monica would object to) of the petty shit that happens. And then there's being expected to endure the flagrant face-slapping of "Yeah, I fucked the girl next door. What are you going to do about it?"

I think it's better stated that marriage ought not be combat.

This guy fired the first shot, and continues his barrage daily. LW is either unwilling or unable to fire back.

He knows damn well Amy would give the same advice if it was a man writing the letter. That's what pisses him off (moreta)

Once again, your speculation about my motives is very, very wrong. I suspect you don't care about that. You just want me to shut up. That's not going to happen, moreta.

Amy...
Til Dud do us part...
Everyone at my work passed this one around because your column is published in a local paper here...we could not stop laughing...
you are pretty funny...
I was impressed that you came back and asked her more questions...it seemed like you might really care?

From Wikpedia: Rationality is a much broader term than logic as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probablility, expectation, personal experience and the like...

My observation over the last couple days indicate a higher probability that Jeff will respond to a comment that is inflammatory in some way. It is what I have come to expect and I have personal experience in this yesterday when he failed to respond to my questions of logic, but would respond to my slight jibes.

While he is welcome to his opinion on my comment being vacuous and correct about it being speculation, I would argue that he couldn't characterize it as irrational.

There's a simple test of what's reasonable in a marriage. Leaving religion out of it, marriage is an enforceable contract.

I'd like to challenge the idea that a marriage is an enforceable contract, even while I think it should be. The state sets the terms of the marriage contract, and give unprecedented authority to family court judges to alter the terms of the agreement ex post. Moreover, the state allows either party to the marriage contract to unilaterally terminate it without penalty. This is not what we usually think of a contract.

Don't you think there's a big difference here? If you do, what implications does that have for thinking about the LW's situation?

>>> the cliche affair, drifting apart, spending time doing what (s)he wants for a change, treating productive work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants

LOL. Maybe if he had taken his new role as trophy wife seriously, & showed up to her photo show as smartly dressed arm candy, she wouldn't have minded so much.

While he is welcome to his opinion on my comment being vacuous and correct about it being speculation, I would argue that he couldn't characterize it as irrational.(moreta).

Yesterday, I couldn't respond to the flood of comments, almost all directed at me. Consider there were over 100 during the work day. I just couldn't keep up with them. At work, I'd just select the last one posted when I checked it. You've failed to account for the volume of responses in your thinking about this matter.

Feel free to email me at jeff.younger@gmail.com, and I'll carry on the argument with you directly. No evasion there. I'm not hiding from you. ;-)

"vlad, I simply cannot believe how obtuse you are. That was hilarious, mate. Go ahead and have the last word. lol" How so? You are claiming that his actions are feminine, camping in the woods by yourself sounds like "a guy thing". If you disagree and feel that women regularly go camping by themselves I'm open to examples. Now your the one throwing speculations and snarky replies when you have backed yourself into a corner.

"Oh no, it doesn't piss me off it gains my admiration." Unless something has changed Amy is still a women. You do make generalizations about women (as a whole, if not your free to disagree) thus logic would dictate that your generalization aply to Amy. Above was the first time you actually pointed out that in your opinion Amy is different then those women that your generalizations apply to. So until you said "It's rare in a woman; thus Amy is a rare, red treasure." why would it have been wrong to assume you included her in your generalization?

"Sunk cost"... Thank you, Brian; that's the phrase I was trying to think of. I think it's a common human failing to not be willing to cut one's losses. I had some stocks once recommended to me by a broker (whose ass I've long since fired) that were plunging. Instead of selling while they still had a little value and getting out, I rode that sinking ship all the way to the bottom. Eventually the companies all went out of business, leaving the stocks worthless. I kept clinging to that hope that somehow, some miracle was going to occur and those stocks were going to rebound. Of course, the broker was feeding that, but I really think it was more of an ego thing: not being willing to admit that I screwed up, until the end game had played out and I could no longer avoid it. Fortunately, in the stock market, the worst thing that can ever happen to you is that you lose some money. In the LW's situation, the game can very well end with one or both of the players dead.

"character judgments from blog comments." When some 911 truther makes comments about the fed planning the whole thing why is it wrong to assume that he's a conspiracy nut? Your comment yesterday states that all women want is for us (males) to pay. Thus I logically concluded that you are of the opinion that at least the majority of women are out to leave you by the curve after milking you for all you are worth. If you do not hold that opinion then it was an error in judgment on my part. And an apology is warranted.
However if you think that a majority of women are narcissistic parasites then the hostility was warranted, and you are a gender based bigot.

Monica: A relationship shouldn't be an endurance trial.

In many aspects, a relationships is and endurance trial. However, it is a shared trial: "It's us against the world." You get through the hardships together - even the ones you occasionally inflict upon each other.

I always thought Bill Clinton's "I have caused pain in my marriage" was a bit disingenuous. Anyone who's been in a marriage has caused pain in it. That's the downside part of marriage. If it's a real marriage, it has upsides; he also caused joy, laughter, and feelings of security.

That said, I totally agree with what I think you were trying to say; that is, a relationship shouldn't be a trial of enduring the other person. What the LW is describing is not a relationship.

Brian: This guy is a depreciating asset.
What a cold and calculating way to look at another human being. I love it. People need to look at each other that way sometimes.

We all have friends who waste our time or borrow money and give nothing back. And I'm counting friendship, an ear to bend, a shoulder to cry on, or even an occasional ride to the airport as a positive return.

This guy is the friend who, when you want to complain about your crappy day and need someone to listen, instead complains about his crappy day and sticks you with the bar tab.

I can feel FW's pain because I have been there. She could have been talking about my ex husband. Although he blamed his bipolar disorder or the PTSD, yet he refused the medications the doctors offered him. What was I supposed to do, right. After all I had made vows to be there in sickness and in health. Every time I would decide I was through and started to go on with my life he would beg me to take him back and prove he was worthy by "acting right" for a while. The minute I gave in and took him back he became a monster again including physical abuse when he was "sleepwalking due to the PTSD".

It got so bad that I thought something was wrong with me and I went to see a psychiatrist. Thankfully, the psychiatrist told me that the only thing wrong with me was that I was blind. A friend of mind who does counseling told me I was in an abusive cycle. Still I kept giving him chances until it started to affect my health ... until I got sick and tired of being sick and tired ... until he said that no matter what happened in our relationship, if I got pregnant, we were going to live together as a married couple until the child was 18 years old.

Once after I had taken him back and things had turned ugly, I saw the possibility of what my life could be like for the next 18 years if I had a child. He went to work and I went out and got myself an apartment. I called all of my friends and told them that I was done and needed help moving. We planned on a Saturday the ex would be working. The minute he left I sent out the signal. By lunchtime, everything was moved out. I went and had my cell phone number changed, thereby removing any chance of him being able to contact me except through my attorney.

I said all of that to say this. Some women can just say that is it and move on quickly. Others will have to wait until "the straw breaks the camel's back". For her, the straw has not broken the camel's back. You can give her all the advice you want. She is not going anywhere until she is sick and tired of being sick and tired. She is looking for someone to validate her reasons for staying.

My mother has a saying, "Never been there or going through cannot tell been there or been through how to get there or how to get through." Take it from been there. FW is not going anywhere until SHE gets good and ready to leave and makes sure he cannot contact her to get her back. Although my ex confessed after the divorce that he did all the stuff he did to get me to leave, it did not stop him from realizing what he lost and trying to get it back (each and every time).

Thus I logically concluded that you are of the opinion that at least the majority of women are out to leave you by the curve after milking you for all you are worth. If you do not hold that opinion then it was an error in judgment on my part. And an apology is warranted (vlad).

I do think many women think it's OK to engage in dishonest rent-seeking at a man's expense. For example, we've agreed on th scamming drinks issue. This also happens in relationships. Simply navigate to yesterday's contentious thread and examine the several advocates for intentional lying about a woman's sexual past, justified by the fact that it is an important criteria for a man.

I've never used a universal quantifier. I think most women hold the view that scamming drinks is OK, and large minority thinks that scamming other rents are OK. I think a majority of women think lying about their sexual past is perfectly acceptable, even as they decry men who enter into relationships dishonestly.

There are kooky ideas. I've not presented any. There are women-hating notions. I've not presented any. I state this as a fact. What's really happening is that many women are unaccustomed to being told, directly, what a man thinks. They disagree on facts and interpretations, but they want such disagreement to be evidence of a character flaw. It's called the psychological fallacy, and it's rampant among the rhetoric employed by women in the US.

Are there misogynist ideas? Sure. But every time I ask for evidence that I'm misogynist, people start talking about my "style." Yes, my style is to address women directly as equals. No deference whatsoever. I reject the claim, implicit in much of the criticism directed at me, that such a style is equivalent to hating women or even evidence of hating women, or even evidence of being an "asshole." In my view, it's evidence that I respect women. And you know what? Where's the respect for me, here?

You're a spirited guy, and you're competitive. I kinda' like that, ttytt. You don't owe me an apology in any case.

However if you think that a majority of women are narcissistic parasites then the hostility was warranted, and you are a gender based bigot (vlad).

I'm missing the advocates for "intentional lying". I see advocates for not advertising your sexual past. If a potential mate asks a direct question, it should be answered honestly. There's a difference between lying and not offering up your sexual history on a first date platter.

Sorry, I forgot to include this in my previous post.

You do make generalizations about women (as a whole, if not your free to disagree) thus logic would dictate that your generalization aply to Amy. Above was the first time you actually pointed out that in your opinion Amy is different then those women that your generalizations apply to (vlad).

"I think a majority of women think lying about their sexual past is perfectly acceptable, even as they decry men who enter into relationships dishonestly." No, the posts I saw are all about leaving said past where it belongs, in the past. So it's more of a don't ask don't tell. Unless her or his past is public knowledge I'm not sure that it would matter. Now if everyone says she/he has nailed everything within a 100 mile radius then when asked they lie about it you've got every right to be pissed.

"large minority thinks that scamming other rents are OK" Had you said this initially then there would have been no argument and no hostility what so ever. It's one thing when it's a question of style, this is a question of content. A large minority of women are narcissistic parasites is saying what you said with different style. While, women think scamming other rents is ok; is a matter of content. The scope of generalization are a matter of content not style. Think of it as a number set, you can use an number of notations but as long as the numbers included don't change it's style. The second the number included change it's content.

Jeff, from your statements I conclude that the woman you want to be in a relationship with should tell you how many sexual partners she has had prior to meeting you. What number would make her acceptable as a mate and what number would classify her as a slut, in your worldview? Have you thought this through, and come up with measurable criteria?

"I'd like to challenge the idea that a marriage is an enforceable contract, even while I think it should be. The state sets the terms of the marriage contract, and give unprecedented authority to family court judges to alter the terms of the agreement ex post. Moreover, the state allows either party to the marriage contract to unilaterally terminate it without penalty. This is not what we usually think of a contract." (Jeff)

Arkansas recently adopted a law, It was passed while I was in law school and taking a Family Law class so I do not remember the name of the law or the statute. Married couples agreed to take extra steps during their marriage ceremony. If they ever decided they wanted a divorce, they had to take extra steps to show they tried things available to them to work out the problem before they were allowed to divorce. This may not be what you mean about "penalty" but imagine being stuck in a marriage with a horrible spouse because you did not follow the guidelines set out in the marriage contract. Think about it ... you don't want to waste time going through all that crap because you know it is over but you have to because the marriage contract says you have to if you want out. Besides, you can still get "at fault divorces" in some states and be penalized (although that is not what they term it).

The LW's husband is trying to break up with her. It's a passive aggressive way to do it so that he doesn't have to be the bad guy.

My ex used a similar technique, his being extensive drug and alcohol abuse. I wasn't living with him, and he was never violent, just high out of his mind every time I saw him. Since we'd been together for 3 years, I tried to be the supportive gf, suggested counselling, rehab, etc., but gave up after 6 months and broke up with him. The next day, he called me, swore he was clean and sober, and denied that I had ever spoken to him about getting help. I didn't fall for the BS reverse guilt-trip he was trying to pull.

If the LW had more self respect, she would be able to see through his little game, and get out.

"Vlad, you are asking me to commit a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of Division." Yet you are willing to commit faulty generalization. You do not have evidence of how women behave besides your observation (or anecdotes) of a small (near insignificant) portion of a much larger whole.

P.S. Now I see your looking for a philosophically debate in the academic sense of the word. While fun in theory none of us have the parsed evidence to actually engage in this, nor would the evidence likely exist. You would need to hunt down a statistically significant portion of women and under sodium pentathal (prevent self serving bias) ask them these question. You would then have to correct the number of samples based on the percentage of humans preferable human females who are either immune to it or are trained to resist.

Are there misogynist ideas? Sure. But every time I ask for evidence that I'm misogynist, people start talking about my "style." Yes, my style is to address women directly as equals. No deference whatsoever. I reject the claim, implicit in much of the criticism directed at me, that such a style is equivalent to hating women or even evidence of hating women, or even evidence of being an "asshole." In my view, it's evidence that I respect women. And you know what? Where's the respect for me, here?

Evidence of your misogyny, exhibit A: "The husband's behavior is interesting, for its femininity: the cliche affair, drifting apart, spending time doing what (s)he wants for a change, treating productive work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants regardless of the wishes of the spouse, telling the spouse to man up about things (s)he doesn't like instead of honestly addressing problems."

You take things you don't like about a person, and ascribe those things to women as a group. So, while you can't escape that in this particular instance, it was a man who engaged in these activities, you point out that in doing so, he was acting like a woman. Indeed, you have a strong tendency of doing that in other cases, as well. To most people here, that's pretty much evidence enough of misogyny. It's not your "style" anyone is objecting to, it's your view of women, as repeatedly expressed in this forum. I have no doubt you can't understand why anyone would say this to you, because you're sure that what you say is merely reflecting an objective, logical truth. That's because you're a misogynist, and passionately believe what you're saying. But that doesn't make it true. The true racist or sexist person just can't see that such a label applies to them, because they think they're just reflecting reality. But no. It's only reality as you see it, and it differs so greatly from so many other people's reality that your bias is plainly evident--to everyone but yourself. I see no chance to convince you of this, or to have you change your mind about women any time soon, as long as you are so committed to this idea that you can only see what you want to see. I don't know enough about your private life to make any kind of firm determination about it, yet from reading what you have said, you seem to be quite sure that "most women hold the view that scamming drinks is OK, and large minority thinks that scamming other rents are OK. I think a majority of women think lying about their sexual past is perfectly acceptable, even as they decry men who enter into relationships dishonestly." The common denominator of all of these women is that you have had dealings with them. Which suggests to me that this is the type of woman you choose to associate with, and for whatever reason, women who aren't like this are invisible to you. Perhaps you should examine your tastes and perceptions if you truly want to know of women who are not like these opportunistic, greedy, duplicitous women you seem to have so many encounters with.

I see this kind of reasoning and unwillingness to see the truth from many women whose husbands have cheated on them. I'm not sure why, but so many instead of kicking the jerk out and realizing they deserve to be treated better, try to justify their actions and then attempt to adapt to become the kind of partner they believe their husband would not cheat on. In translation ... they become doormats.

The LW is a classic case. She is trying to convince Amy and us that despite her husband's actions he is still a great guy. She is doing this not to convince us really, but to convince herself he is worth all the abuse of disrespect. To admit that he is not is humiliating and heart breaking. Its easier to live in a fantasy world, even if Prince Charming is bedding other princesses.

FYI post that have gone before:

Camping for me and almost every woman I know involves a nice hotel room. :-)

I don't know any woman that these characteristics fit: "work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants regardless of the wishes of the spouse, telling the spouse to man up about things (s)he doesn't like instead of honestly addressing problems."

For one thing the women I have come into contact with like having their own money and not have to ask a man. It is tied to her being independent. Think about it, in most cases of spousal abuse where the woman is being abused, the woman feels stuck in the relationship because she has no other source of income and no recent experience needed to get a job. Women do not like being in that position because then they feel they HAVE to take what is dished out.

Personally, I was a homemaker when I was married, but it was at his insistence. Still, I don't think I would have been agreeable if to it if I had not invested enough to be financially stable when we got married. The only way I was allowed to pay a bill was if i snuck behind his back and did it and even then I to listen to him complain about it when he found out ("because a real man takes care of things without a woman's help" his crap not mine). It was clear that he was struggling. I was more financially able to take care of us and have him sit at home, and that with me being a full time student and not working. Not that I would have accepted that ... that would have gotten rid of me faster than the other.

In addition, it has been my experience in life and from listening to others that women tend not to totally disregard how their actions will affect they spouse. I am not saying all men do this but from what I have seen it is more likely the man who wants to act like he is single even if he is married no matter how it hurts his wife. I have heard almost every excuse possible from men for acting this way. More recently I heard, "I am out of town on business so I am not really married. It does not count when I am out of town." (Didn't the husband from LW spend a lot of time out of town?)

Okay true, MOST women will tell a man to man up about things but only because HE refuses to even acknowledge there is a problem. For instance, a friend of mine has a girlfriend who does not like the fact that he is spending a lot of his free time hanging with the boys, there is a problem. Obviously she is feeling neglected. He does not see that there is a problem. After all he always hung out with his buddies on the weekends, even before he met her. He said that there was nothing to discuss.

You take things you don't like about a person, and ascribe those things to women as a group. So, while you can't escape that in this particular instance, it was a man who engaged in these activities, you point out that in doing so, he was acting like a woman (vlad).

Look, you think I hate women. Cool, I get it. I think your being stupid and rash. Cool, you get it. It's not resolvable.

Isn't it time to stop talking about me and instead talk about the subject at hand?

In the example given by Marie, the men and women seem to have different expectations of what they will get and what they have to give in the relationship. Some guys think that when they get married, their lives won't change a bit from their life as a single guy. This turns their wife into their second mom.

If the woman told them exactly what they expected, these guys wouldn't want to get married, and the woman wouldn't want to marry them because they would be putting all the work into the relationship and not get what they want out of it from the guy.

The guy that said there was nothing to discuss was looking at the situation as a power struggle and wanted to assert his dominance over her. Women usually expect a more or less equal partnership, but that doesn't seem to mesh with these guys who want to be in control.

If she were a trophy wife and he were Donald Trump, then that might be the agreed upon arrangement, but if she is contributing her share financially as well as doing a lot of the domestic duties, he can't make all the decisions and have everything suit his convenience.

Yet you are willing to commit faulty generalization. You do not have evidence of how women behave besides your observation (or anecdotes) of a small (near insignificant) portion of a much larger whole (vlad).OK. What observations are faulty?

Be careful, you may be committing the error crid speaks of: requesting a proof of the obvious.

If the woman told them exactly what they expected, these guys wouldn't want to get married, and the woman wouldn't want to marry them because they would be putting all the work into the relationship and not get what they want out of it from the guy (chrissy).

"You take things you don't like about a person, and ascribe those things to women as a group. So, while you can't escape that in this particular instance, it was a man who engaged in these activities, you point out that in doing so, he was acting like a woman (vlad)." Ehhm, not me. Might want to check who the quotes are attributed to.

"Isn't it time to stop talking about me and instead talk about the subject at hand?" Diversion is not a logically sound stratagem. You asked for evidence that your concepts are misogynistic. Quizzical1 showed you fairly logical thought process as to why we would arrive at the conclusion. You change topics.

"It's a stereo-type that sells on Lifetime." So now are you admitting to watching Lifetime? So either you watch Lifetime (which you accuse without proof the LW's husband) or you are making unsupported assumptions.

Now this should be a question you answer for your self. Do you personally subscribe to (believe in) this stereotype? Do you feel that this is a derogative stereotype? If this is in your opinion a valid assertion about women (without any reasonable evidence to support it) which would be derogatory to any women who does not match it would that not hint at a minimum a skewed view of women.

"What observations are faulty?" I'm not faulting the observation you are making (I can't do that cause I wasn't there to make them) I'm faulting the generalization of your observation of a small part to a much larger whole. I do not currently have the time nor the resources to conduct an exhaustive study to refute or support your claim. I am making the assertion that you have not conducted said study and do not have grounds to make an assertion.

The assertion that women follow a stereotype of any kind is the very definition of bias unless you have evidence to prove the assertion.

It depends on the woman. Every woman wants something different from a relationship. In the one particular case above, the woman obviously wanted her boyfriend to spend a lot of time with her, for him to be her companion and friend. He wasn't interested in doing that, otherwise he would be doing it.

Some couples write out a marriage contract prior to getting married, which outlines all their expectations, with regard to everything from money, housework, number of times they have sex, what kind of sex, you name it. The more detailed these agreements are, the better. Otherwise the whole marriage will be based on assumptions, and inevitably, disappointment for both.

"Yes. dishonesty before leads to problems after, even if it's lies by omission." So if he actually doesn't want to know her past (marrying some former member of a religious cult) should she still tell him. Don't sneak out of this one I know I'm using a boundary identification.

"Yes. dishonesty before leads to problems after, even if it's lies by omission. So what should a woman tell a man before marriage, just to ensure he knows what's what before going in?" - Jeff

I do not think I am qualified to answer this question because I have no problem telling a man what I expect and what I will or will not do. Life has taught me that is best. I do know that being upfront about it does not mean the man will necessarily take you serious or like it. You know how it is said that women always think they can change the man. It has been my experience that some men think the same thing. In addition, some think that you remove the mystery when you are upfront. What was it he said, "A man likes to think it will be a certain way even if it is not. Makes him think he is still in control."

I have friends who collect stuff like this. One collects pick up lines. She requests that all of her friends and friends of friends send her pick up lines they have heard (male or female). The other collects what she sees as senseless stuff people say and yes she archives them by sex. They say one day they will write a book.

Anyway, back to the subject, Chrissy you may think it is a control thing for my friend but I think he just wants to have his cake and eat it to (i hate that saying but it is so fitting). If he was not my friend, I would probably tell her to tell him she thinks it best they see other people and just stop calling him (but that would probably been seen as stabbing him in the back).

Ehhm, not me. Might want to check who the quotes are attributed to (vlad).

So now are you admitting to watching Lifetime? So either you watch Lifetime (which you accuse without proof the LW's husband) or you are making unsupported assumptions (vlad).

Of course, I'm playing to your rhetorical strategy: always aks for more no matter how dumb.

He's not going to change and in his position most people wouldn't. If I could quite my job and go run around the woods for weeks at a time while the wife covers the finances just after nailing the neighbor I might do it to. Well at least think about doing it. The guy has the best of both worlds why the hell would he change.

The stereotype under consideration is: "the cliche affair, drifting apart, spending time doing what (s)he wants for a change, treating productive work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants regardless of the wishes of the spouse, telling the spouse to man up about things (s)he doesn't like instead of honestly addressing problems."

When you ask, "do you personally subscribe to this stereotype," you mean do I think it's true. Yes. I do. Otherwise marketers of romance novels, women's self-help books, television networks like Lifetime, and many other institutions that market to that stereotype wouldn't exist.

Do I think it's derogatory? Oh yes. I'm not in favor of woman acting that way, not by any means.

Tell you what, vlad, let me play at it, too to show you how dumb it is. You wrote,

He's not going to change and in his position most people wouldn't. If I could quite my job and go run around the woods for weeks at a time while the wife covers the finances just after nailing the neighbor I might do it to. Well at least think about doing it. The guy has the best of both worlds why the hell would he change.

Marie, that was quite a mission you planned and executed in your earlier post! I've twice in my life been signed up for such missions. Once, it was a good thing I was around, because boyfriend showed up unexpectedly and there was a violent confrontation. He tried to slam the door, but I got my foot in the door and he couldn't shut it. Then he took a swing at me, but he had no experience fighting, so I just grabbed his arm and shoved him out of the way. That mission was completed successfully, and the lady involved did get her life straightened out. On the second mission, alas, the woman decided at the last possible moment (everyone was there and ready to execute) that she didn't have the guts to go through with it. We all had to clear out ASAP because she started acting funny and we didn't know what she was going to do next -- it got spooky really fast.

As for your more recent post: "I don't know any woman that these characteristics fit: "work like its optional because (s)he needs to find the true self, feeling entitled to do what (s)he wants...'" My wife could introduce you to some. She's a manager in a field where most of the employees are women with little or no previous work experience. The positions are entry-level but pay pretty well despite that, and they can be gateways to a very lucrative field that's also considered glamorous in today's society. And no degree is needed; the company provides all training.

You'd be stunned at how hight the turnover is. The average tenure for a new employee is about six months. Frequently, they'll have a new employee who will accept an offer, and then not show up for their first day at work. Then, two weeks later, they'll call wondering if they still have the job. My wife has told me some stories. They get women who expect that they have earned a two-week paid vacation after working only a few days. Some of them think they can come and go as they please, run errands, pick up kids, etc., while remaining on the clock. Or they're on the phone constantly. Or they get bitchy because they think that some task or another is beneath them, and they sass co-workers and then walk off the job. Then, after no contact for two weeks, they show up like nothing happened and expect to be taken back with no repurcussions. Some days my wife comes home from work and says "women really piss me off sometimes".

Certainly, no, not all women are like that. But some do exist. What percentage of all women is this? Hard to say. Although my wife has hired (and fired) a lot of women in her career, it's a self-selecting sample, and the job attracts a certain kind of person. So I hesitate to generalize based on that.

Forgot the caveate which I though I had added. "Assuming he doesn't give two shits about her" If he doesn't care or she for that matter why not take advantage of it. No I wouldn't either but the thought would cross my mind. Fair enough though I see your point.

"My theory is that publishers put a lot of money into researching what women want and how they view the world. " Or that women like mindless entertainment as much as men do. That's the equivalent of saying that WWE and comics books are written for men because men think spider man is real and people can take a real pumling repeatedly and not have debilitating injuries. I'm pretty sure some guys would love to be spider man and get hit with a chair without injury, but I hope most men don't actually believe it.

Me: You take things you don't like about a person, and ascribe those things to women as a group. So, while you can't escape that in this particular instance, it was a man who engaged in these activities, you point out that in doing so, he was acting like a woman (vlad). [Wrong. It was me, Quizzical1]
jeffQuite the reverse. I'm noting a general quality, and showing how the husband, rather humorously, fulfills a well-know female stereotype. It's a stereo-type that sells on Lifetime. Another demonstration of misogyny, shot down.

I'm pretty sure some guys would love to be spider man and get hit with a chair without injury, but I hope most men don't actually believe it (vlad).

In this case however, we might find that many if not most young men have a heroic view of the world, and the Spider Man movies reflect that view. Of course to think about it that way, one might have to think in the large and broadly.

There are some I have met who do think spider man is real (hidden by the feds) and the WWE is completely real. Would that give credence to the stereotype that men are stupid. I would resent being stereotyped with these idiots and any women who categorizes us as such would be a man hater.

"Well you can take a silly lesson away from anything, and you're pretty good at that." It's silly because it clashes with your preconceived notion of the world. This does not change the fact that it has the same validity as you assertion about womens entertainment.

"Well you can take a silly lesson away from anything, and you're pretty good at that." Is this a ration argument or are we being condescending?

I think taking the existence of Lifetime TV and romance novels to mean that women generally fall into the stereotypes potrayed on these media is flawed.

When I look at Neilsen ratings for last week, not one Lifetime show made the top 10 list. Unfortunately, they don't break down viewership by male/female, but do break it down by Hispanic and African American...which tells you where the real lines of marketing lie. Interestingly, BET didn't rate any shows in the top 10 for African Americans. I'd conclude that even along those "marketing lines" we're rather homogeneous in our TV watching. It seems women (and everyone) prefers American Idol, Dancing with the Stars & CSI over "romance" movies.

I also took a look into fiction stats. The latest study I found was from 2000 so not current, but what I could find quickly. It suggested that of fiction readers, 80% were women and that they led in all categories: Espionage/thriller (69 percent); General (88 percent); Mystery/Detective (86 percent); and even Science Fiction (52 percent). While I'm sure that 95% of romance readers are women, the study also indicates that is only 1 in 5 women. Not exactly a majority.

I believe that the existence of these media simply suggests that there is a niche out there from which revenue can be generated. There's a small percentage of hard-core fans which would fall into the stereotype of what they are like or what they wish they and world was like. A few others that might dally into the genre for entertainment, but that's about it.

For myself, I've never watched Lifetime TV (Spike is way more entertaining and has CSI marathons), but I did read a Danielle Steel novel once when I was 15. It was left behind at the retail store I worked in...great sex scenes!

It's silly because it clashes with your preconceived notion of the world. This does not change the fact that it has the same validity as you assertion about womens entertainment.

My assertion was that media marketers take great pains to play to the stereotypes and world-views of their audiences. That's on a much higher par than

"some guys would love to be spider man and get hit with a chair without injury, but I hope most men don't actually believe it (vlad)."

There are some I have met who do think spider man is real (hidden by the feds) and the WWE is completely real. Would that give credence to the stereotype that men are stupid. I would resent being stereotyped with these idiots and any women who categorizes us as such would be a man hater (vlad).

And don't forget, vlad. I want an answer. Aren't you making an unwarranted assumption? What allows you to claim "most people wouldn't"? I know lots of people who wouldn't take advantage of a woman like that. I wouldn't take advantage of a woman like that. And since this is a man, aren't' you really just venting your misandrist self-hatred as a radical feminist eunuch? (I don't believe any of this, but I'll continue to play it up, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.)

Come on, answer it. This is your rhetorical "style." Chicken?

"When you ask, "do you personally subscribe to this stereotype," you mean do I think it's true. Yes. I do. Otherwise marketers of romance novels, women's self-help books, television networks like Lifetime, and many other institutions that market to that stereotype wouldn't exist." - Jeff

Does life imitate art or does art imitate life? I have yet to see where that question has been answered with certainty. I read the occasional romance novel or look at the occasional movie on Lifetime or WE. I always want to strangle the women. In the novels, I find myself thinking, "that would never happen in real life." In the movies I just want to hunt those women down and shake the living daylights out of them (if the story in true). Sometimes I think the writers put their own perspective on what happened.

I am sure you have all heard about the test where you whisper something in someone's ear. They pass it on to the next person and so forth and so on. By the time it makes it back to you it is not at all what you initially whispered. Why, because what was said was heard through each person's own perspective and experiences.

"Or that women like mindless entertainment as much as men do. That's the equivalent of saying that WWE and comics books are written for men because men think spider man is real and people can take a real pumling repeatedly and not have debilitating injuries. I'm pretty sure some guys would love to be spider man and get hit with a chair without injury, but I hope most men don't actually believe it. " - Viad

Well said

Cousin Dave - I am glad you did not generalize. Like i said, I don't know any women like that. But then someone once said that when forming acquaintances one of two things happen. You are either drawn to those who are like you or the opposite.

I wrote a paper while in undergrad for one of my Communication Studies classes. We were suppose to come up with a theory and write about it. My theory was basically that there is something in each of us that cause us to be attracted to the same type of man (woman) no matter what bad experience we'd had before ( some post seem to suggest this). Once you figure out what it is that attracts you, you can learn from it and change. Around that time I had a tendency to be attracted to men who needed their faith renewed in women. Something about the injured puppy got me (not that I think men are dogs). Here is the thing .... I did not realize that was the type I was attracted to and wondered why I always ended up with that type. Writing the paper gave me a chance to examine myself and now I run from guys like that as if they have the plague.

Moreta, Romance novels are one of the largest genres of books sold. A wuarter of books sold are Romance novels. It's a huge market.

I believe that the existence of these media simply suggests that there is a niche out there from which revenue can be generated (moreta).

Can all this be overstated? Sure. But it does tend to validate the existence of the stereotypes that we've been discussing.

"Forgot the caveate which I though I had added. "Assuming he doesn't give two shits about her" If he doesn't care or she for that matter why not take advantage of it. No I wouldn't either but the thought would cross my mind. Fair enough though I see your point."

"Please. Get new friends. This explains your emasculated world view. ;-)" Um if a women thinks all men are stupid, the assumption that she's a man hater make me emasculated? Care to explain why?

"My assertion was that media marketers take great pains to play to the stereotypes and world-views of their audiences." I made the same assertion, or is it only lifetime that gets it's marketing done and Spiderman's producer did nothing of the sort. I took it to the next step (just as you did) by suggesting that it would validate a stereotype of men.

Stop with the emoticons and LOL your not 4 years old.

Hmmm. I must have mangled the link to the stats.

A quarter of all books sold in the US are Romance novels. Huge market.

See, I'm not sure Romance novels are "mindless entertainment" vlad. I'm just not a snobbish as you, I guess.

"But it does tend to validate the existence of the stereotypes that we've been discussing." Not the pervasiveness of said stereotype.

Um if a women thinks all men are stupid, the assumption that she's a man hater make me emasculated? Care to explain why (vlad)?

I made the same assertion, or is it only lifetime that gets it's marketing done and Spiderman's producer did nothing of the sort (vlad).

Your claim in this instance wasn't about marketing but about actual belief. That was dumb. Just admit it.

Stop with the emoticons and LOL your not 4 years old (vlad).

And don't forget, vlad. I want an answer. Aren't you making an unwarranted assumption? What allows you to claim "most people wouldn't"? I know lots of people who wouldn't take advantage of a woman like that. I wouldn't take advantage of a woman like that. And since this is a man, aren't' you really just venting your misandrist self-hatred as a radical feminist eunuch? (I don't believe any of this, but I'll continue to play it up, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.)

Come on, answer it. This is your rhetorical "style." Chicken?

Not the pervasiveness of said stereotype (vlad)

"See, I'm not sure Romance novels are "mindless entertainment" vlad. I'm just not a snobbish as you, I guess." So you think that true understanding of women can be gleaned from Romance novels? There is no way that women would read this just for the fun of it?

OK folks, I'm going home. Low level of intellect today. I'm glad I got to duscuss some stuff with moreta, though. I feel bad that brian's posts were overcome by the Jeff-is-a-misogynist discussion. His ideas are a lot more interesting than me.

So you think that true understanding of women can be gleaned from Romance novels? There is no way that women would read this just for the fun of it (vlad)?

I warned you to avoid paraphrase. Now you're setting up a straw man. Just read my posts. They are clear enough.

Enough until tomorrow.

Come on, answer it. This is your rhetorical "style." Chicken?
"Fair enough though I see your point." Now who's being obtuse.

""There are some I have met who do think spider man is real (hidden by the feds) and the WWE is completely real."" So your friends with all the people you meet. There were no LARP at your school. It's hard to miss 15 guys going at each other with foam swords in the court yard.

"Your claim in this instance wasn't about marketing but about actual belief. That was dumb. Just admit it." So was your, you claim the women actually believe what they read in Romance novels.
As for why I think this
"See, I'm not sure Romance novels are "mindless entertainment" vlad. I'm just not a snobbish as you, I guess."

Yes...they sell a lot of books...to a small percentage of people. Thus making the stereotype an invalid generalization. It takes 20% of the female population to categorize the other 80%. I'm no statistician, but that seems unreasonable.

How about the case of socialism to demonstrate how "most" people who, given the opportunity, would take advantage of the few who provide?

Jeff and Marie should get married.

But on the actual subject, maybe he is just bored of the relationship. Sounds more to me like she is the boring type who likes the bad boy style guy with her purpose in life being to change him into a model husband, probably trying to replicate her parents marriage. He may be a dickhead, but if thats the case why does she love him and want to keep him in her life. There was a famous female American singer who once said- Why do women marry men and insist on changing them, only to leave them when they succeed, stating that
'Your not the same man I married'.
If anyone knows who that was, I would love to know.
Being that she allready has plenty of reasons to leave him, but doesnt want to, my advice would be to try being a bit more fun and exciting so that she is someone that he would like to be around. Many of us would like to have someone to grow old with, sitting on our wooden front porch with matching cane rocking chairs, but for me there will be a time for practising sincronized rocking and staring lovingly into each others eyes, and thats when thats all we are able to do.
There is simply no point trying to change someone else, you either change yourself or get out. Changing yourself will often result in the other person CHOOSING to change themselves as well.

"Jeff and Marie should get married." - Al

I thought I was dealing with intelligent adults on this site. I guess I was wrong because that was about as juvenile as it comes. Sounds like something my 9 year old niece would say.

In addition, it was completely out of left field.

Well I would appreciate it if Amy (Alkon) would keep us posted on what the LW ends up doing, provided she can. I've been in relationships where I got treated like dogshit before, but grew a spine where my wishbone used to be (LOVE that phrase!) and haven't had any trouble showing those kinds of guys the door for many years.

Some people grow up with great self-esteem and a firm grasp of the difference between what they can and can't change. I wasn't so lucky, but I got it figured out eventually.

Reading the letter makes you almost want to smack the LW for being such a wimp, but you know, she's already getting smacked around plenty, at least from an emotinal perspective. She's really being beaten down already. I hope she ditches this creep - takes her cameras and the rest of her photography equipment and makes a great life for herself. Her husband is about 160 pounds she needs to lose.

And Marie, don't pay any attention to that nonsense. I really enjoyed reading your story, and it was completely relevant to the article being discussed here. The best way to deal with Jeff is with the scroll button. (Although lately I must admit that all this scrolling is making the little arrows at the side of my screen tired.)

Thanks Pirate Jo, but it was not Jeff. It was Al and life does go on. I like to tell stories and give examples when making a point. There is no chance I will change for Al.

Al: I think I've heard something like, "Women marry men expecting to change them. Men marry women hoping they'll never change." Can't remember who's supposed to have said it. Its another generalization of course and won't apply to everyone. It could also be the reverse...."he's not the man I married" or "she changed." Which I think you pointed out ....

My concern in that the longer the LW stays with this guy the harder it will be for her to leave. Someone here talked about investments ... I suspect the more time someone invests in a relationship the harder it becomes to write it off. LW may not want to admit that she's "wasted" her time and hopes that if she sticks with it just a little longer it will all have been worth it. Its tough to take that big step and cut your losses. It would be awful if in five or ten years she was in the same situation.

Lots of talk about generalizing here. (Didn't we have almost the same discussion a couple of columns ago??) I have to say that its hard not to generalize, and I suspect that people do so based on their own experiences and those of people they know. We all tend to project. After a couple of decades in law enforcement I found myself making a lot of "most men" and "most women" generalizations, and defending them vehemently. A few years on my job and the people I interact with on and off the job tend to be more varied and I've started to recognize how the job had affected my view of what's "usual".

I'm wondering also about the ages of some of you? I mean does our experience of (for example) what women want from a man, or vice versa for that matter, vary by age? I can't decide if women in my age group are more independent and less interested in how they can use men, or if I just think that because I tend to be friends with more women like that. I have a 22-year-old niece who complains that women in her age group are "all about" what they can get from men: cash, gifts etc. Just wondering ...

As for change, well, its always possible. So is really good totally fat-free chocolate. But its also very unlikely. I read somewhere, "The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." I think it had something to do with recidivism rates in violent and/or sexual offenders.

Golly, does this Jeff bloke have a job? I mean, as a silly, irrational, fluffy-headed woman, I find his no-doubt trenchant posts generally too tedious to read (I'm sure it's just because he uses too many long words and complex mathematical equations, instead of talking about shoes and ponies, as us gals prefer). Still, there sure am a lot o' them . . . wish I had such a lax workday . . .

I've been reading this column for a while and have enjoyed it. Amy's advice is brilliant. In this case, I hope that the LW has the strength to get rid of the freeloading jerk and rebuild herself.

I think that Jeff (if he wasn't kidding and I seriously hope he was) needs to stop basing his concepts of women on Lifetime television and romance novels. He should try to talk with and perhaps *gasp* maybe even date a few real live women. My guess is that he will find a few who are much different than the women on poorly written lifetime movies. I'm sure he's right that there are some women out there who take advantage of the dating situation for a free meal. But at least I myself and every woman I've discussed this with at length are in it to get to know the guy better and discover if they are compatible to try a more serious relationship.

With experience and self-confidence it gets easier to spot and avoid the freeloaders-- such as LW's man and the hypothetical women described by Jeff. I believe that "popular stereotypes" aside, the occasional man and woman does exist who genuinely wants to find love and is capable of being involved in mutually (mostly) rewarding relationship. Otherwise we might as well all follow Jeff's example by sticking to the romance novels and the lifetime specials.

LOL, very sorry Marie, That should have read Jeff and Vlad.
I wasnt paying attention as I skipped over all the personal banter. It was said in jest with referance to the arguing. Very sorry, you are part right tho, im an Aussie. Can I come back in the sand pit now.

Al - Already forgiven.

"Still, there sure am a lot o' them . . . wish I had such a lax workday . . " Don't know about Jeff but I have to run Simulations which takes half an hour to set up and hours to run. If he's a practicing mathematician he may be in the same boat. Besides typing and text browsing I can't do anything with the damn thing.

"That should have read Jeff and Vlad." Yeah I figured you were reffering to me and him. What, I'm bored I can't even play pong on the damn thing during a simulation.

"Still, there sure am a lot o' them . . . wish I had such a lax workday . . ." Don't know about Jeff but I have simulations that take half hour to set up and hours to run. I'm pretty much stuck browsing text pages cause I can't even play pong on the damn thing. If he's a practicing mathematician he may be in the same boat.

Apparently even that doesn't work to well sorry for the double post.

Lily, pay no attention to the mysogynist troll that is Jeff. He loves a good argument, and will even invent them for his own amusement. I've no time to waste arguing with the likes of him.

Loopychick, I do have to concur with you about the age thing. I was used and abused by men when I was much younger (late teens to mid-twenties), and lacking in healthy self-esteem. As I got older, and learned that I don't have to put up with anyone's shit, nor am I obligated to be anyone's doormat, I grew a backbone where my wishbone was, and got on with my life. There are still a lot of things about my ex-husband that piss me off, but I've learned that not all men are like him, and so I've developed some close relationships with good male friends. And it's funny but I've also gotten to be much better friends with my own brothers now that we're all older!
My BF and I have an outstanding relationship, but it comes from the mutual realization that the one is not responsible for the other's happiness - that comes from within. We make it work by enhancing each other's lives, just by being who we are and enjoying each other for who they are. Makes life a lot more bearable that way. We have our moments when we disagree of course, but we take pains to work it out to a mutual understanding. Some issues take a longer time than others, but we manage to find common ground most of the time. I'm sure it has to do with the fact that we both want to make it work, so we make sure we are both putting into the relationship what we want to get out of it. YMMV

I agree that the longer she stays, the harder it will be to leave. This is partly because being in a "relationship" this craptastic distorts your sense of normal. When you're beaten down as much as this LW appears to be, making excuses for someone comes naturally.

The LW is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome (but then again, so is my cat).

Because she has low self esteem, she doesn't see this. When you have high self esteem, you have perspective, know that you are OK on your own, and will be treated much better by other people, so your self-preservation instinct kicks in very early, and you leave the relationship.

Wow, Amy, I just love how yor column can bring about such good debate. I love your answers because, as usual, you are spot on. I'm trying to get the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to pick you up. Keep up the good work.

Vlad, I normally like reading your comments, but I hate it that this comment thread devolved into Jeff v. Vlad and Moreta...not nearly as interesting as usual. Sorry to pop out of nowhere like that with just a nastygram, but your comments (Vlad) are part of what I look forward to reading every week along with Amy's column. My advice, even though no one asked, is just ignore Jeff and don't respond. Arguing just feeds the trolls.

"He's now on a weeklong road trip to a friend's...down the road from his affair partner...and I'm supposed to "learn to deal with things one can't control." Now here's some advice he gave her and she should take it to heart. You can not control him at all. So she can leave him or you can suffer it out till he leaves, probably with child to go be free in the wild dark woods. Even the husband, asshole that he may be agrees with Amy's advice, you can't control him just yourself. So deal with him who you can't control, leave and find something better.

Jennifer: yup, I should have seen it sooner.

Wow, this is the second thread in a row to be taken over by some longwinded guy who loves the sound of his own voice. There were some very interesting posts in between his, though.

Vlad, I certainly hope that Jeff is doing simulations too -- if not, he's doing all this tedious posting on company time.

And we Americans wonder why so many of our jobs are being outsourced.

I'm trying to get the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to pick you up.

Thanks, PJ, really appreciate that. FYI, to people who read me and like me here, I earn a living when papers run me, and if you would request my column in your local daily (the features section) or the local alt weekly, I would be most grateful. There are a lot of stodgy editors who won't run me - but reader requests sometimes make a difference in cutting through their objections.

Amy, I would like to get my local paper to run your column too. I want to send a letter or e-mail to the editor - what contact information should I give them?

'I'm supposed to "learn to deal with things one can't control." '

Sounds like the best advice he is likely to give you. No, you can't control him. What you can control is how you react to his bad behavior. In the end, you can't make someone stop doing what he wants to do. All you can do is stop letting him to it to you.

It's hard to walk away - I know that. You have to admit that something failed that you tried really hard to make work. You have a lot invested emotionally, and probably financially. You can't get back the time and energy that you've put into this relationship.

What you can do is stop letting him waste your time and energy. Use it to help jump-start a new beginning for yourself. When you stop trying to fix your relationship and instead focus on fulfilling yourself, your life will be so much better. Trust me, an empty bed is so much better than one that has you, him and all your combined emotional baggage.

That says it all.

Did the LW ever stop to think that he would be better off if she left him? He's spending all his energy trying to drive her away. If she wasn't there, he might do something productive. Sometimes walking away is the best thing for everyone concerned.

Well, nothing is impossible, they say. However, to me it seems highly unlikely that this shmuck would be motivated to stand up on his own two feet and take responsibility for himself.

No, I think he would just latch on to another gullible girl and become her problem -- amd a future LW for Amy.

P.S. Besides, who cares if he'd be better off, after the way he's been treating his wife? Does he even deserve to be better off??

But I suppose that might be the only argument that could persuade the LW to leave him, seeing that she says she still loves him (WHY???!!)

My married female relatives always ask, "Aren't you ever going to settle down?" Lets see ... great job, great med coverage and pension plan, own a condo, own a vehicle, social life, lots of great friends, some with benefits ... oh wait, I think they mean, "Why aren't you married yet?"

I'm going to show them the LWs letter and yell, "THIS IS WHY, DAMMIT!"

Loopy - your life is a testament to the anachronism that marriage has become.

Men and women no longer need each other for survival, which means that marriage comes down to companionship and children.

And if you don't want children, you don't need marriage for companionship.

Shorter: Marriage is too much like work for two career people to be bothered with it.

Brian: Wow, my initial reaction to your post was to feel like a sad combination of mistrust, negativity and sloth, all rolled into one.

However, the rational part of me agrees with you, so perhaps its just the usual post-lunch slump I'm feeling. Its a fact that many people don't "need" to be married in the way people used to - for financial reasons, for public perception, to produce enough kids to run the farm, etc. Looking at those of my friends that remain happily unmarried I'd have to say that we're independent and have no desire to have children. Marriage can be a lot of work as you point out, and speaking personally I haven't yet met the guy that is (to me) worth that much work. K, that just sounded pompous ... all worthwhile relationships being a balance of give and take, I haven't yet met the guy who brings things to my life, and our relationship, that would in my mind balance out what I would have to give up. Does that make sense??

If and when I meet this guy I'll be certain that we're together because we want to be - no because I "need" him to provide for me. I don't rule marriage out for anyone. I just think that a lot of people, men and women both, go into it with dangerous assumptions: s/he'll never leave; I can learn to live with (insert whatever negative trait); we'll never lose our jobs; we both want the same things; he'll never beat me; and then one or more of those things does come to pass, and you're stuck. And as the LW's letter illustrates: once you're stuck its hard to get unstuck, even without taking the practical aspects of survival into consideration..

Brian, I think your comments are spot-on. Loopychick, your life sounds a lot like mine, but maybe you think of marriage in a romantic light, and that's why Brian's comments seemed to rub the wrong way at first?

I have always been dead-set-against having kids. I don't necessarily feel that way about marriage, yet on the other hand I see no reason to do it, and lots of reasons not to. I'm as far to one side of "neutral" territory as a person can get without quite falling into the dead-set-against camp on it. (Maybe I will get married when I am in my 60's or 70's, who knows.)

Don't get me wrong, I think love is wonderful and sweet, and I think it CAN last a lifetime. In fact, I'm nuts about the boyfriend I have now. So why would I want to wreck it by getting married to him? (I say this only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.) The truth is, I won't know if my relationship with him will last another twenty years until I get to the end of the next twenty years.

I was in a relationship once that lasted over seven years, but guess what, it didn't last forever. It was a relationship worth being in while it lasted, but we were right to end it when we did - we have remained friends but are happier with the new partners we have now. But it did impress upon me the fact that there are no guarantees. I'd rather not go through a bunch of legal crap if that ever happens again.

Rats. You might be right: I'm a romantic realist. Isn't that like "military intelligence"?

Rats. You might be right: I'm a romantic realist. Isn't that like "military intelligence"?

And apparently one with a twitch ... sorry!

"Men and women no longer need each other for survival, which means that marriage comes down to companionship and children." - Brian

Not necessarily. I adopted my son last year as a single woman. Besides, what about sperm banks.

Loopychick: I wish I had been as smart as you. When I met my ex, I immediately knew he was not for me. I was not attracted to him at all but let him become my friend. The more he got the know me the more he realized what he was doing wrong. Slowly he became what I wanted in a man. One day we were sitting there and I was like WOW. I had no idea he was like this. Glad I got to know him. Even then I had misgivings. Up until he serenaded me on the alter I had misgivings. If the family members who felt he was too good to be true had told me what they were feeling, maybe I would have opened my eyes wider and seen the fraying around the edges of his false persona. Instead they chose to keep their mouths closed and hoped for the best (that changed when they found out about the divorce, father and eldest brother included). However, I do not blame them. I do not even blame my mother who loved him. I blame me because I should have listened to my feelings that something was not quite right.

Marie: No credit to me: I think it was my parents who were smart - she always said, "Hope for the best, plan for the worst." He said, "Live with the guy for a week or two first - long enough to know if he picks his nose at the breakfast table." Ok, so he's no poet .... and they're celebrating their 50th this fall.

I think its easy to ignore that little voice in the back of your head when those feel-good brain chemicals start kicking in ... love is not only blind, but deaf, dumb and not terribly bright sometimes. Don't blame yourself - sounds like it worked out for you in the end.

Loopy - you pretty much nailed it. Lazy, negative, and suspicious. That's me in a nutshell.

But I'm also rational. I realize that I have been blessed to live in the time that I do.

Fifty years ago, I would not be where I am now were I not married.

Fifty years ago, a man who was 38 and unmarried was considered unreliable, untrustworthy. I certainly wouldn't be a respected member of the community (ok, maybe that's pushing it) with my own business, my own house, and a decent income. Back then, if you weren't married, with children, you weren't considered to be a grown man.

Loopychick: I do not know if it is so much ignoring the little voice and not being able to find a reason for it. When he first asked me I did not immediately answer. I made him wait two weeks for an answer. During that time, I tried to figure out why I was so hesitant and if I had good reason. He was (had become) everything I wanted in a man. Did I have commitment phobia? What was throwing me off? Was I one of those women who only wanted an excuse for not being in a ltr so I was looking for problems? I asked myself this and more. I finally decided that I had misjudged him when I first met him and needed to give him time in person to show himself. We met through a mutual friend so it was a blind date. We had talked on the phone and through emails until we actually had a first date. By that time, I was pretty sure he was not for me and the first date confirmed it. His response to me on the phone and through email was totally opposite to mine and the first date made him more confident he wanted to date me.

I remember one of our last outings (date) before he proposed. We were supposed to still be just friends hanging out. He brought along his five year old niece. On the way to take me home she made the statement that she wanted me to be her aunt. I heard him say dang. I thought he was worried that I would think he put her up to it or that he had decided he did not want to date me that way and was afraid she would give me ideas. I found out after I accepted that he did put her up to it (in a way). She is the final step a woman has to go through with him. Apparently she is picky and likes no one. If she liked me that meant I was definitely the one because I had to be special to overcome her pickiness. Yes, I was played by a five year old. I can laugh about it now.

Marie: Yep, its tricky. Wouldn't it be easier if we all wore signs designed by the last person we dated? "She's a smart, funny girl, but she's really needy and wants 11 children." "He can morph into the perfect man - but it'll wear off." Or in my case - "He really wants to get married. And you'll do fine." Think of the trouble we could all avoid!"

Brian: Correct again! Geez, If you weren't too young I'd suggest we briefly hook up. I have this fantasy where Mike Holmes (Canadian contractor, has his own show, looks great in coveralls) comes over, shags me senseless, completely renovates the kitchen, and then leaves. No chance you're a carpenter?

>I can feel FW's pain because I have been there.

For the record, the Marie in the posts above is another Marie, not me. I'm Marie-in-Locarno whose butt Crid once called big. Just wanted to straighten that out.

From here on out I will be known as Marie E. I had no idea there was already a Marie (in Locarno).

Well, you both seem like pretty cool chicks to me. And two is better than one!

Agreed. I'll sign as Marie L.

Na, you don't love him, you have this unrealistic need to seek approval from him. Guess what? You're never going to get it from him. Ever. Because his brain is in some fantasy world, and honey, it doesn't include you.

Either you need to see your own self worth and get out, or else you'll be sucked into a financial vortex with 2 kids he probably didn't want and it'll be even harder to leave.

She needs to boot this guy to the curb, IMHO. But, as Dr Phil would put it, there's got to be some kind of payoff that we're not seeing. She wants him to be a dad? Stupid people shouldn't breed, and I don't want their inevitable divorce clogging up the court system, and giving their child support division more federal money, or her ending up on the federal dole.

Neither gender should put up with this crap. Unless she's happy with a trophy spouse, or he comes with some other kind of benefits that she can't do without (for instance, his speedo looks like he's smuggling a squirrel in the front pouch), either pull your weight or get out.

If she lives in California, or similarly insane alimony states, she needs to be careful about how she goes about separating from him, or she'll find out what millions of men with idle spouses have learned the hard way: it sucks to be the hard-working, responsible person in the relationship, or at least the higher earning person. I would have guessed that by now, women coming face to face with alimony and child support payments would have caused a reform of this system, but some people never learn.

Men should take the same advice about putting up with idle spouses. Hell, take Amy's advice, and don't get married, don't combine finances, and don't live in states where so many months of sharing sheets is equivalent to a marriage contract.

it was good to know about this ... trying to get more information on this thing ..will post the updates here .. :) ...

Here are some tips to help with you achieve your pefect bridal makeup: s ome more interesting links.. ... .