SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2004
SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
1037
Tue, 02-15-2005 - 12:54pm

I was just at the gym this morning and overheard a conversation between two women on treadmills who were discussing/debating as to whether married sahms were any more or less likely to have affairs than married wohms.

I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

Pages

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 4:49pm

It's not my fault you don't remember what you've posted.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 4:50pm

<>


Then you're talking to yourself. Because, for about the millionth time, no one has claimed that except you.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 4:53pm

I gave my logic. I named the post. You have done neither.


So far all you've done is spend an inordinate number of posts claiming Hollie and I said something we didn't. Yawn.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 5:49pm
Your logic? You did? I must have missed it. I stated where you are wrong, more than once. I pointed out your blatent contradicions. I have clarified my position, more than once. You just don't get it and that's ok. And frankly, you keep saying I said something I didn't. Hollie has been quite clear in her position and she has not faltered. She didn't say tell a lie and you are a liar, then say oh I didn't say that. You have. And a big ole yawn back atcha.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 5:50pm

OT, but what one earth does this mean?

<>

First of all, husbands don't get to "have" their wives committed. People are committed when they are a danger to themselves or society. Mental illness is not a reason for someone to be committed against her will.

Second, your idea of a choice between having the husband care for her or having her locked up against her will is beyond absurd. If the husband can care for her (i.e., she doesn't need to be restrained), then she does not need to be locked up. If she does need to be in a locked mental ward, then the husband is certainly not capable of taking care of her.

Congratulations! I'm so happy to hear it. I just heard the good news and popped back over, just in case you were still checking in.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 5:50pm

And for the millionth time, I never said you did.

Sheesh - I've been resisting, but... a big ole whoosh to you TM!

Buh bye.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 6:36pm

<<I stated where you are wrong, more than once.>>


No, you just said I was wrong, with no explanation.


<<I pointed out your blatent contradicions.>>


No, you haven't. Not even once. Link, please.


<<You just don't get it and that's ok. >>


Where have I indicated that I don't get it? I understand you perfectly and still disagree with you. Imagine that.


I am pleased to see that you have decided that all those "insulting intelligence" things I supposedly do aren't really insulting at all, since you have done them repeatedly throughout this debate. I knew you'd come around.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2004
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 7:04pm

I said I don't do what you do? When? Link please.

I won't be providing a link, since for some reason, I am not able to. Whether it is me or my connection, or my pc is up for debate. You were wrong when you said I was contradicting myself. You said that because I said there are no absolutes, that nothing is immoral, which you say, I claim not to have said. I disagree that no absolutes = nothing immoral. I have not said nothing is immoral. I have only said that committing an immoral act, does not mean the person committing the act is immoral.

You said you have not labelled, that I have. I have not. In fact, what I have said is that we are not in a position to label. In spite of your claim to not label, you have said if you lie you are a liar, if you steal you are a thief. Then you said that you were labelling the behaviour not the person. So, the behaviour is the liar, the thief?

Where have you indicated that you don't get it? In the numerous posts where you state my position erroneously. If you understand me perfectly, you have failed to convey that.

Nick

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 8:12pm

LOL - guess you weren't as done as you thought you were.


<>


No, and I didn't say otherwise. Really, if you have to keep making up things to debate with instead of responding to what people have actually said, why bother coming here at all? What you did say about what I do is that it was wrong, so I erroneously assumed that you weren't holding me to a different standard than that to which you hold yourself. Then again, you also said it was an indication that the person doing it had no real argument, so maybe that explains your use of it.


<>


Ctrl-C, Ctrl-Z. Unless the reason you're referring to isn't a technical one, of course. I can think of a pretty good reason you won't be providing a link.


<>


Um, no, that is not the only thing you have said. You said a great deal about circumstances contributing to the morality of the act, but then you also agreed with virgo that circumstances and reasons do not make an act moral. The contradiction is within your argument, which is why you are tripping yourself up so often. You claim that all humans are flawed and then claim that immoral behavior is not the result of being flawed. You claim that giving someone a label is defining their character then admit that it is only defining one aspect of their character while still claiming it is labeling their moral core. You have assumed judgement where there is none. You have, in fact, fabricated an entire argument that neither I nor Hollie ever made so that you can make post after post "debating" something that has never been offered for debate.


<>


Of course you have. You have taken what Hollie and I have said and applied your own perception of "labeling" to it and then tried to debate that perception. I disagree with your definition of "label". You only think I'm contradicting myself because you insist that I'm doing something according to your standards and not my own. I notice you have conveniently not addressed any of my posts clarifying that point. Big surprise.


<>


I've never stated your position. I'd ask for a link, but I know better. You have "reasons" you can't provide any. But here, just so you'll know I "get it" - you think that an immoral act does not make a person immoral. Did I get that right?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-19-2005 - 9:12pm

Is love more important than sex? Definitely.


Would I personally have to be in love to be interested in sex? No.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages