Are Men Success Objects?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 4:50pm

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...

The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.

Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!

I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.

Submitted by Coronita on October 22, 2014 - 4:54pm.

No way man. I'm a miserable failure!

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 5:00pm.

flu wrote:
No way man. I'm a miserable failure!

Not true my friend, but if it were true, would anyone ever have loved you other than your mother? Um Forget I said that , she's Asian right?

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 5:26pm.

I think I traded my life for some success and an nice craft beer collection.

Submitted by njtosd on October 22, 2014 - 5:54pm.

Blogstar wrote:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F

The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.

Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!

I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.

Wait, other than the apologizing for him being a man, I was interested in what you had to say, until you said "Hot women never go out of style, for instance." The obvious retort is "Neither do rich men." And then we're right back where we started.

When I met my husband, we did the same job and earned the same, with the same education. Because he wanted me to relocate, and because we wanted to have kids soon after marriage (both of us were in our 30s), and because we both thought our kids would do best with a stay at home parent, we decided that I would stay home. I deliberately developed a well paying career, beginning in college, out of fear of being influenced by someone else's paycheck. I out-earned most of the guys I dated.

I feel like I've followed my values - I may not have a funny bone (although I think I'm a stitch), but not all women are out for a success object.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 22, 2014 - 7:07pm.

I believe my overall sexiness is pretty overwhelming.

But I'm not sure what the first link is to? I wanna read.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 7:12pm.

njtosd wrote:
Blogstar wrote:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F

The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.

Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!

I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.

Wait, other than the apologizing for him being a man, I was interested in what you had to say, until you said "Hot women never go out of style, for instance." The obvious retort is "Neither do rich men." And then we're right back where we started.

When I met my husband, we did the same job and earned the same, with the same education. Because he wanted me to relocate, and because we wanted to have kids soon after marriage (both of us were in our 30s), and because we both thought our kids would do best with a stay at home parent, we decided that I would stay home. I deliberately developed a well paying career, beginning in college, out of fear of being influenced by someone else's paycheck. I out-earned most of the guys I dated.

I feel like I've followed my values - I may not have a funny bone (although I think I'm a stitch), but not all women are out for a success object.

I guess "hot women are still in style" doesn't translate to "sexual objectification of women is alive and well"? That's what it means. The apologizing for it being a male is for she who's name can not be mentioned. How does a little silliness make something interesting uninteresting ?

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 7:31pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
I believe my overall sexiness is pretty overwhelming.

But I'm not sure what the first link is to? I wanna read.

The first link is just to a yahoo search result that shows lots of hits to the topic. The link works for me. Lots of reading.

For reading , You could work off the wiki link on Warren Farrell for a long time . I like to put in the names of books and read the reviews on Amazon. Pretty good discussions.

The book I read in 1988 is "why men are the way they are" It was fresh out of the oven first run. I was 26 .

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 22, 2014 - 7:54pm.

I read iron John by Robert bly in the 80s. This Farrell dude sounds more reasonable.

Boy powrr!

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 8:29pm.

njtosd wrote:
Blogstar wrote:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F

The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.

Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!

I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.

Wait, other than the apologizing for him being a man, I was interested in what you had to say, until you said "Hot women never go out of style, for instance." The obvious retort is "Neither do rich men." And then we're right back where we started.

When I met my husband, we did the same job and earned the same, with the same education. Because he wanted me to relocate, and because we wanted to have kids soon after marriage (both of us were in our 30s), and because we both thought our kids would do best with a stay at home parent, we decided that I would stay home. I deliberately developed a well paying career, beginning in college, out of fear of being influenced by someone else's paycheck. I out-earned most of the guys I dated.

I feel like I've followed my values - I may not have a funny bone (although I think I'm a stitch), but not all women are out for a success object.

I am sure you followed your values. Quick question, you out-earned most the men you dated and dumped....how about the one you married?

Submitted by UCGal on October 22, 2014 - 8:30pm.

My husband is convinced he's the sex object in our relationship. I don't dissuade him of this notion. LOL.

Submitted by njtosd on October 22, 2014 - 8:53pm.

Blogstar wrote:

I am sure you followed your values. Quick question, you out-earned most the men you dated and dumped....how about the one you married?

As I mentioned in the post - same education, same job and roughly same earnings (within a few percent - I can't remember anymore). Not surprisingly I met him through work (although we did not work together), we had graduated the same year, so we were roughly in lock step. I don't think I "dumped" people, but just in case you think I was getting rid of the low earners, a couple of them were orthopedic surgery residents, who were on track to out earn me. So you can spin that as you like. There were others (engineers, etc. - nerds probably in your estimation, and overall poor dancers) who were not expected to have the same gains. You won't believe me, but I like people who I think are interesting and honest and generally share my values. I also tend to like Irish guys.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 9:12pm.

njtosd wrote:
Blogstar wrote:

I am sure you followed your values. Quick question, you out-earned most the men you dated and dumped....how about the one you married?

As I mentioned in the post - same education, same job and roughly same earnings (within a few percent - I can't remember anymore). Not surprisingly I met him through work (although we did not work together), we had graduated the same year, so we were roughly in lock step. I don't think I "dumped" people, but just in case you think I was getting rid of the low earners, a couple of them were orthopedic surgery residents, who were on track to out earn me. So you can spin that as you like. There were others (engineers, etc. - nerds probably in your estimation, and overall poor dancers) who were not expected to have the same gains. You won't believe me, but I like people who I think are interesting and honest and generally share my values. I also tend to like Irish guys.

Not going to spin it , just looking for a data point on the topic. Good Job, UCgal too (based post on the other thread.) The dumping is a joke....maybe I will put jokes in italics until you find that bone you lost. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there.

Submitted by njtosd on October 22, 2014 - 9:22pm.

Blogstar wrote:

Not going to spin it , just looking for a data point on the topic. Good Job, UCgal too (based post on the other thread.) The dumping is a joke....maybe I will put jokes in italics until you find that bone you lost. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there.

Make the jokes funnier and I will get them. I hesitate to ask - was repeating the last sentence supposed to be a joke, too? Did you ever read "A Confederacy of Dunces" ? Husband hates it, I think it's hysterical. One of the few humor things we disagree on. We both love Monty Python.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 22, 2014 - 9:28pm.

Glitch on uploading.

Haven't read the book. I will look at it. I don't like monty python. The first time I saw a Fish Called Wanda I liked it, but not later on.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 22, 2014 - 9:57pm.

njtosd wrote:
Blogstar wrote:

Not going to spin it , just looking for a data point on the topic. Good Job, UCgal too (based post on the other thread.) The dumping is a joke....maybe I will put jokes in italics until you find that bone you lost. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there.

Make the jokes funnier and I will get them. I hesitate to ask - was repeating the last sentence supposed to be a joke, too? Did you ever read "A Confederacy of Dunces" ? Husband hates it, I think it's hysterical. One of the few humor things we disagree on. We both love Monty Python.

Humor. This is the funniest thing ive seen in a really long time.Key & Peele: Auction Block: http://youtu.be/zB7MichlL1k

Seems to be a commentary on male insecurity in the labor market

Submitted by njtosd on October 22, 2014 - 11:39pm.

Blogstar wrote:
Glitch on uploading.

Haven't read the book. I will look at it. I don't like monty python. The first time I saw a Fish Called Wanda I liked it, but not later on.

I don't really like the Wanda movie - I thought the Michael Palin character was a cheap shot - and I don't love Jamie Lee Curtis. I like the Holy Grail, and the flying circus episodes.

Submitted by CA renter on October 23, 2014 - 5:34am.

Blogstar wrote:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F

The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.

Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!

I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.

I'm fairly familiar with Warren Farrell. He's no feminist. NOW is strongly opposed to much of what he preaches (they parted ways years ago). His views completely ignore the different biology and hormones of men and women. He's one of the most powerful forces behind the "Second Wives/Fathers' Rights" movement that seeks to take away any of the few remaining safeguards provided to women (or men) who give up everything -- especially wage earning -- in order to care for their families.

And here's an article quoting him on his research that finds that most people in incestual relationships have a positive experience. He states that the reason girls don't like having their fathers or other male relatives rape them is because:

"Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt."

...page 4

http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.pdf

Is it any wonder that NOW disagreed strongly with his push for father custody or full 50/50 custody arrangements, irrespective of who was more responsible for the child-rearing during the marriage, and irrespective of the age of the child (including breastfeeding children)?

He goes on to say this:

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

[page 6, from above link]

He also claims that many children who accuse their fathers of sexual or physical abuse in custody cases are really "victims" of PAS -- Parental Alienation Syndrome. Gee, I wonder why.

---------
Here he is defending date rape:

From "The Myth of Male Power":

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

"We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comme...

.........................

"Highly regarded," indeed.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 9:03am.

dupe

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 9:07am.

Warren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.

I don't have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.

Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don't throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.

NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.

Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about...most the time she doesn't though because she knows what she did.

Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don't speak for the whole topic of "No". I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.

I don't know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.

Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let's talk about this stuff.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 9:09am.

Love is a polygynous primate battlefield. (Pat Benatar left out some words)

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 9:25am.

The light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?

Submitted by poorgradstudent on October 23, 2014 - 9:40am.

Tangental, I've read that the whole stereotype of "rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary" is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It's actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.

Submitted by njtosd on October 23, 2014 - 1:28pm.

Blogstar wrote:
The light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?

Probably. The gene for blue eyes did not arise until about 6000 years ago. Now 20% of the population has blue eyes. Considering that there isn't a very clear evolutionary advantage for blue eyes (although there is a mild one for those living in northern areas), it is interesting to see the genetic gains blue-eyed people have made in a relatively short period of time. So if there was a active polygynous group (which there kind of is, even outside the Mormon community) it would be likely that the children arising from that group would get taller. Of course, that assumes that our species hasn't maxed out on its height potential.

Submitted by UCGal on October 23, 2014 - 1:32pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:
Tangental, I've read that the whole stereotype of "rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary" is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It's actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.

coming home from walking the dog on the beach this morning I listened to an NPR story about how rare the trophy wife really is.

Yes there are beautiful women married to rich men. - But if you dig deeper, those beautiful women are often wealthy in their own right. Outside of the blatent examples like Anna Nicole Smith, it's really much less common that you'd think - to the point of being rare.

The radio piece had a lot of discussion with a sociologist about this - she basically restated the idea in the other thread - people marry at their own level. She pointed out that rich people are more comfortable around other rich people. Beautiful people tend to be more comfortable with other beautiful people. So the trophy wife stereotype has a rich guy marrying someone poor - which is unusual, and a beautiful woman marrying someone not attractive - which is also unusual... so that combo really makes it rare.

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 1:36pm.

njtosd wrote:
Blogstar wrote:
The light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?

Probably. The gene for blue eyes did not arise until about 6000 years ago. Now 20% of the population has blue eyes. Considering that there isn't a very clear evolutionary advantage for blue eyes (although there is a mild one for those living in northern areas), it is interesting to see the genetic gains blue-eyed people have made in a relatively short period of time. So if there was a active polygynous group (which there kind of is, even outside the Mormon community) it would be likely that the children arising from that group would get taller. Of course, that assumes that our species hasn't maxed out on its height potential.


The blue eyes run a lot in Catholics. That could be part of it, high birth rates.
One data point. My parents made 8 blue eyed kids.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 23, 2014 - 2:19pm.

Blogstar wrote:
Warren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.

I don't have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.

Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don't throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.

NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.

Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about...most the time she doesn't though because she knows what she did.

Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don't speak for the whole topic of "No". I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.

I don't know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.

Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let's talk about this stuff.

here's a bizarre unpublished rape fact. Google rape orgasm. Data shows 4 to 6 perc. Of actual rape victims involuntarily orgasm during a rape including stranger rapes with extreme danger.

people are wired differently than we might think

Submitted by NotCranky on October 23, 2014 - 6:42pm.

UCGal wrote:
poorgradstudent wrote:
Tangental, I've read that the whole stereotype of "rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary" is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It's actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.

coming home from walking the dog on the beach this morning I listened to an NPR story about how rare the trophy wife really is.

Yes there are beautiful women married to rich men. - But if you dig deeper, those beautiful women are often wealthy in their own right. Outside of the blatent examples like Anna Nicole Smith, it's really much less common that you'd think - to the point of being rare.

The radio piece had a lot of discussion with a sociologist about this - she basically restated the idea in the other thread - people marry at their own level. She pointed out that rich people are more comfortable around other rich people. Beautiful people tend to be more comfortable with other beautiful people. So the trophy wife stereotype has a rich guy marrying someone poor - which is unusual, and a beautiful woman marrying someone not attractive - which is also unusual... so that combo really makes it rare.

I'll concede to a lot of that. Age comes into play. Maybe this is rarer than I think also, but the guys who take foreign women not their race or education and income level seem to take younger women pretty often.

Submitted by UCGal on October 23, 2014 - 8:19pm.

Blogstar wrote:

I'll concede to a lot of that. Age comes into play. Maybe this is rarer than I think also, but the guys who take foreign women not their race or education and income level seem to take younger women pretty often.

I've seen this to... I've also seen a lot of these marriages fail. Mismatched expectations.

Submitted by CA renter on October 23, 2014 - 8:36pm.

Blogstar wrote:
Warren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.

I don't have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.

Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don't throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.

NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.

Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about...most the time she doesn't though because she knows what she did.

Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don't speak for the whole topic of "No". I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.

I don't know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.

Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let's talk about this stuff.

I have no problem with reasonableness on custody issues. But I DO have a problem with second wives (often former mistresses) trying to remove support from a first family under the guise of "father's rights." When shared custody is forced for the sole reason of reducing/eliminating support for the first family, I have a serious problem with it.

There is a very strong relationship between "Second Wives" groups and "Fathers' Rights" groups. The second wives are the ones who have successfully pushed this agenda, not the fathers. There are many stories about men who did not want to take custody away from the mothers, but were coerced by their subsequent wives, instead. Not "reasonable" under any circumstances.

And you need to do some research into the story behind PAS and the connections between those who try to legitimize it and people who justify incest and abuse. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that you're not aware of.

As for Warren Farrell, I question the motives of a man who made a lot of money as a prominent feminist, then changed his stance entirely to advocating for "men's rights." He's a huge supporter of fathers' rights (some would argue that he supports the rights of abusers a bit too much), but has no children of his own. He's condoned incest and date rape, too. Something is not right on that front. I find him creepy.

That being said, Farrell makes some valid arguments regarding the damage that divorce can do to men, women, and children; but I would not consider him "well regarded" in the world of psychology (his credentials are in political science, IIRC) or family law. He has more enemies than friends there.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on October 23, 2014 - 8:36pm.

UCGal wrote:
My husband is convinced he's the sex object in our relationship. I don't dissuade him of this notion. LOL.

Typical Pisan...

:P

CE

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.