(May 16, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: You seem to be implying that you DO care about ruining other peoples lives. Isn't that a bit of a non sequitur for you?

Caring about people doesn't have to be logical, I mean... since when did I base my life around logic?

Capable though I may be, I see no signs of me being this... "Dragonborn".

---

(May 16, 2013 at 6:36 pm)festive1 Wrote: Except cheating isn't always about the cheating. It's a symptom something else is wrong in the relationship. Someone's needs, emotional, sexual, intimacy-wise, whatever, are not being met, so they seek fulfillment elsewhere. That's what oftentimes needs fixing, not glossing over and forgiving and forgetting. I'm dubious of any marital advice that doesn't look at why the cheater cheated in the first place.

Monoamorousness... I never will understand it.

Men to often look at situations from a man's point of view, and women tend to look at things from a woman's point of view, could it be it's hard for the other to see from the other's point of view. IMO the woman should have spoken up and then both points of view would have been represented and then things could have been reasoned from there. The lady did have a chance to stand up for this woman's situation. My question here is why did she not respond.

(May 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Maybe a temptress might be more at fault than the husband

I mean... imagine me a few years from now, if I didn't care about ruining the lives of other people?

I don't know why this made me burst out laughing haha you're an evil person if you do that, you know that?

(May 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Like when some deranged maglomaniacal malecontent supposedly gets nailed to some plank, or the "martyrs" whose "persecution" alledgedly did so much to "validate" "faith" in the said malecontent?

(May 16, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Godschild Wrote: My question here is why did she not respond.

Well, you don't take issue with Pat Robertson in public without some concern about your own reputation within the fundamentalist community.

(May 16, 2013 at 11:22 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 16, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Godschild Wrote: My question here is why did she not respond.

Well, you don't take issue with Pat Robertson in public without some concern about your own reputation within the fundamentalist community.

That shouldn't be acceptable to Christians, and there did not have to be issues if Pat Robertson is the Christian he claims to be.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Godschild Wrote: Men to often look at situations from a man's point of view, and women tend to look at things from a woman's point of view, could it be it's hard for the other to see from the other's point of view.

Hard for some, maybe, not for me. I'm forever cursed with seeing the other person's POV. I know other people like that as well, so I know I'm not as unique as I like to imagine myself to be.

(May 16, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Godschild Wrote: Men to often look at situations from a man's point of view, and women tend to look at things from a woman's point of view, could it be it's hard for the other to see from the other's point of view. IMO the woman should have spoken up and then both points of view would have been represented and then things could have been reasoned from there. The lady did have a chance to stand up for this woman's situation. My question here is why did she not respond.

To me, it is not so much about the female perspective as it is about giving the cheater a pass. Though the gender roles probably do play a part in Mr. Robinson's advice. If the situation was turned, and it was the husband writing in about his unfaithful wife, what would Mr. Robinson's advice be? I don't think he'd be telling the guy that women are weak and can't help themselves, or insinuating that the husband should try harder in some way.