wOw’s Question of the Week

Rape, philandering, and “love children.” Is there something in the water? Can the despicable behavior of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn be explained as a power rush — or just boys being boys?

Liz Smith: I’m afraid I do subscribe to the “boys will be boys” — testosterone poisoning — “there is nothing new under the sun” theories of the one major difference between males and females. Women are simply more romantic, more concerned about family and less likely to cheat than men. The majority of guys seem to drift to the “a stiff  #%&* knows no conscience” school.

This doesn’t mean that cheating is OK and should be excused. Cheating hurts; it hurts the cheated and the cheater too. Maybe marriage vows are unrealistic and always have been, but that doesn’t mean the ideal should be tossed out. Otherwise, what’s the point of getting married and swearing to “keep you unto him or her” with the partner, forever after?  (In any case, legal marriage is good for joint property values.)

In Arnold and Maria’s case, it is the length of deception, the proximity to the married couple by the third person, the fate of an illegitimate innocent child and whether or not everybody kept quiet long enough for Arnold to keep being governor of California. I’d say the delightful Ms. Shriver – absolutely one of the best of her entire famous family – was enabling Arnold by staying silent for as long as she has. Ages.  But in cases of cheating, everybody is suffering so I wouldn’t want to heap coals of fire on her head for trying to keep the lid on for the sake of their children and her marriage.

While old Joe Kennedy was influencing his good-looking sons to do as he did about women in general, I have often wondered what some of the exemplary females in the Kennedy family thought about their father, uncles, sons, brothers, etc.

It couldn’t have surprised Maria that men cheat — it seems most of her male relatives did and so Arnold was just trying to fully “join” the most famous family in America.

There is quite a lot of the lure of unreasonable fame giving one the chance to do anything one pleases in this incredible story. (See Roseanne Barrs’s own personal story in New York magazine last week about how fame and selfish self-regard lure stars to their doom.) So Arnold’s selfish behavior is just another example; he has done pretty much whatever he pleased and gotten away with it since his young bodybuilding days. I’m sure it never occurred to him that he couldn’t get away with this latest – and he did, for 13 years!

Joan Ganz Cooney: Men have been having children by the household help since forever. I guess the answer as to why is because they can and because it’s convenient. Of course, it takes a certain type but quite a few men seem to be that type and it’s disgusting and always has been. Much more so when the women were slaves. As to Strauss-Kahn, he’s an out of control animal who wants to dominate and hurt women … not make love to them. He is dangerous and should be put away.

Candice Bergen: Isn’t it the alpha male syndrome?? Isn’t it some kind of linkage to libido? And a sense of impunity? The confidence that they are exempted from accountability for their actions? The Froggy guy, Strauss-Kahn, has a disorder beyond that:  Violence towards women. And it’s interesting that he hit on SO many women in France and none of them reported him. A cultural schism.

Mary Wells Lawrence: My father was the first to tell me but many good male buddies have discussed with me the Universal Male Tic.  An attractive woman walks by any time, day or night, and certain muscles automatically go into play and tickle the psyche.  It has been in the genes since men became men. My buddies (including a few scientists) say it is often irritating and can be claustrophobic knowing you have so little control over that area of your psyche. We read about the famous ones but the tic is universal, happening almost everywhere.   Maybe the problem is not the Universal Tic.   Maybe it is that we don’t teach our girls, our women about it and how to avoid it as you would a landmine. Lack of control is unpleasant for all concerned. Celebrity makes it a lot easier to lose control, don’t you think?

Sheila Nevins: Men were meant to spread their seed. It’s biblical and even better anthropological. Young guys who cheat are usually caught up in fame and groupie chasing. Forget them. Let’s deal with the main chase.

Come on, you wOw Cassandras, it’s about the survival of the species. When women’s eggs drop out of the equation this hunter-gatherer species (ours) had to keep making babies so we humans had a shot (ha) at being the surviving land-species. Nature never expected over-population. Fooled ‘em didn’t we? So men, the victims of survival,  keep and keep spreading. Their fertility keeps them going even in spite of what might be our complex “civilized” morality requirements.

Romanticism and fidelity leave many men with women’s loss of fecundity.  Yes, there are always exceptions. Some people have nine toes.

But it’s nature that rules the masses, baby. And then, it’s the older geezers — post eggy spouses — these are the most men that spin out of control. Spitzer, Edwards, Schwarzenegger, Strauss-Kahn.. Also, possibly, as their fertility drops men need viagrisizing, dangerous playmates, forbidden (high or low) recipients to get tied up  in order to get it up. I’m talking about ejaculation. Remember, they can’t have one without the other if they’re going to do a proper fertilization. So men must tickle their fancy with danger and forbidden pleasure in order to excite their waning libidos.

As for being “pigs,” poor dears, they are simply human — live shorter lives and as babies they are the weaker — they talk later, their instincts are poor and their dicks are not under their personal control. Serves them right. Blame the survival of the species, not these poor obedient Darwinian followers.

Candice Bergen: Okay. Don’t pussyfoot it. Sheila, you are, of course, right. As usual. And we should simply get over it. Unless it happens to us. Then I’m calling you.

Joan Juliet Buck: I second Sheila. She says it as she sees it, and she sees straight.

Joan Ganz Cooney: I’m sorry but I must disagree with my friend Sheila on her seed spreading theory of rape. Rape is an act of anger and violence and has very little to do with the continuation of the species. Arnold is in a different category … he’s a cheat but he is definitely spreading his seed. Rapists are bullies and often sociopaths who are not really interested in sex per se, but rather exerting power over the weak.

 

 

 

36 comments so far.

  1. avatar Lila says:

    Mary: if there is a purely biological UMT, then I don’t blame males for having it. But if they want to be MEN and not chimps, they need to control their impulse to act on it, anything ranging from catcalls to attacking the chambermaid. For the record, attacking the chambermaid and ejaculating all over her is pure CHIMP behavior.

    As for teaching our girls to “avoid it like a landmine,” YES, but how, exactly? No burka for me, thank you, but I do think there is a benefit to – for example – NOT dressing like a hooker and getting drunk at frat parties. It is wrong for young man-chimps to assault a drunk, scantily clad college girl, but the college girl would do well to fully realize that she is, in fact, dealing with young alcohol-and-testosterone-fueled man-chimps and not chivalrous knights. Am I blaming the victim here? Maybe a little, in those cases where there is a complete absence of common sense. But then you have cases like the chambermaid, purely a victim of male chimpery. Too late to avoid it there; I would have reacted by feeding him my toilet brush, and let the EMTs worry about extracting it.

    Sheila: yep, it’s the way of survival of the species from ancient times. But as you note, we have overdone it a bit on “be fruitful and multiply and cover the Earth.” We have covered it so thoroughly we are starting to look like mold. See paragraph 1 on how being human means choosing to act with our minds and not our loins. See also: chimpery.

    • avatar Testarosa says:

      Great points all, Lila. And I think you’re onto something there. I simply cannot get out of my head the description the French journalist (who says she was raped by Strauss-Kahn) gave to the media: whether she said it in French or English, the term “rutting chimpanzee” speaks volumes! And, FWIW, the chimp is a chump for being foolhardy enough to think he could keep on getting away with it.

  2. avatar Maizie James says:

    Sheila, well said.

  3. avatar Bonnie O says:

    Rape is not the same as infidelity.  Dominque Strauss-Kahn has been indicted by a Grand Jury on seven counts of physical assault including rape.  Arnold is an adulter…. and from what I have read he is not a one-time offender.  His affair with a member of the household staff while especially hurtfut to Maria does not make Arnold a criminal;   Strauss-Kahn if convicted will do major time in a New York State prison.

    These two men are not the same.  One is a dangerous individual while the other is a heartbreaking husband.

  4. avatar Grace OMalley says:

    Many years ago, after I was first married, my slightly older, but much more slender and well-educated best friend was going through a rough patch and I was toying with the idea of inviting her to come live with me and my husband for a year or so, just until she got back on her feet.  I mentioned my idea to an older, female boss and she was horrified and told me that under no circumstances should I even mention this idea to my friend.  Why I asked?  Because men are dogs, she told me.  They run purely on instinct.  You put a steak in front of a dog and he’s going to go for it, no matter what.  They can’t help it.  They don’t always mean to cheat and in fact, straying may not even be on their radar.  But you put that “steak” of opportunity in front of them, and they’re going to go for it, cause they’re dogs. 

    Oddly enough, it is my real dogs who have taught me the meaning of unconditional love.   Perhaps Maria and Ms. DSK should consider paying a visit to their local shelter.

      • avatar Lisa Bonnice says:

        Stupid computer. It posted that before I was even started typing what I wanted to say.

        Anyway, I hadn’t even finished reading the first sentence of your post before I had the same reaction as your boss. There is no way I would have another woman living under my roof, even a housekeeper. I love and trust my husband, but I’m not going to throw another woman into the mix. There is a reason I have exes (been there, done that).

      • avatar Lisa Bonnice says:

        Gee, I might as well just keep replying to my own comments, eh?

        I forgot to add that the situation I learned from the hard way (no pun intended) was not just the fault of my ex. The “friend” played an active role in that scenario as well, so it ain’t just the guy in situations like these. And Ahnold’s maid was certainly not blameless either.

  5. avatar Grace OMalley says:

    and by the way…..

    I took my bosses advice and never mentioned it to my friend and without going into lengthy detail, it ended up being very good advice.

  6. avatar crystalclear says:

    Great comments above.   Not much to add except to reiterate that one man is a criminal and the other an adulterer.  

    Love the steak and dog example because it is true.   However, some dogs may not be hungry and will walk around the steak while sniffing.   He may come back and eat it later.   Timing is everything.

  7. avatar Laurie Deer says:

    Men are dogs, well only if they cheat, otherwise they are a great sense of companionship and comfort.
    My dad philandered around, I hate to guess, most of his marriage to my mom. He worked away Monday to Friday in cities all across the Northeast. In the early years, he came home every second week or weather permitting. This life style surely put my dad on his path to infidelity and it continued in the later years closer to home. It broke my mother’s heart when the rumors became reality in our small hometown.
    But like Liz said, women are into romance, family and love. While men’s radar detects the nearest female in heels. As women, we see it in men everyday, we see their glances as a woman walks by, evidently more so if she is attractive.
    But it’s no excuse, don’t marry a woman and then break her heart by cheating. And go Maria go, for the jugular, ooops I mean for a divorce.

  8. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    I think the Europeans have the healthier atittude. Or used to. I suspect we have all become too “liberated” in our “mores” and so instead of mistresses and lovers, many men have had male lovers in addition to the mistresses, not that we are supposed ot talk about such things, there is this constant “revolving door” for the wives, and I suppose in some cases the husbands, to deal with. Who can deal with it? Not many I know. Except for Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s wife.  Having been around as I have I can see where someone might have set him up. But if he wasn’t a sleazeball to begin with, it wouldn’t have been so easy to set him up. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    I had affairs with married men when I was younger.  I finally realized it wasn’t going anywhere and I really didn’t expect it to go anywhere, so I moved on. Some wives know. Some don’t.  Again I got a telephone call one night. The wife looking for the husband. I had no idea she knew. Both of use simultaneously thought, and exclaimed, “if he’s not with you, then who is he with?” She and I ended up friends. And we both dumped him.

    A wise old Hungarian told me years ago that you fall in love in the kitchen. I do believe that is true. And if things are fine in the kitchen, you don’t miss the bedroom so much. And know, without knowing perhaps, that someone else may in the bedroom.  But three in the bedroom is not the same as three in the kitchen. And that of course was the problem in the end with the Schwarzeneggers. As it is for many others. 

  9. avatar Sue Fawcett says:

    So, men are neanderthalic dogs, driven strictly via penis power, and we should throw up our hands and look the other way? While it is true that testosterone is a powerful sexual motivator, men do have intelligence and a free will; excusing their poor behavior merely reinforces allowing them to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Rape? Why, the way the woman was attired was the reason for the rape – it was her fault – not his, according to your philosophy. Aren’t we ‘over’ excusing poor male behavior and blaming the victim? In regard to the person not allowing the female friend to stay in the house because of the possibility of the husband becoming sexually tempted, aren’t you penalizing the woman (before anything has occurred) instead of holding the male accountable? Isn’t this the type of thinking we’ve fought long and hard to change?

    • avatar Lila says:

      Our sense of freedom and personal responsibility in this country has gotten seriously warped. We are free to speak and dress as we like, within certain very generous bounds, even free to be jerks and press other people’s buttons. But there IS such a thing as instigating, by pushing other people’s buttons to an unwarranted extent, and in those cases, YES, you bear some responsibility for what happens to you. Don’t play with fire and you won’t get burned.

      Say you’re gay and kiss your boyfriend openly in front of a worked-up skinhead crowd. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong for the skinheads to go crazy and beat you up, but really, what did we think would happen?

      Say you’re black and go, alone, to a KKK rally and confront them. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong for the KKK members to beat you up, but again, what did anyone really think would happen?

      Or… you could be white, and think it’s hilarious to go into an inner-city black neighborhood and yell N***** at everyone, or possibly make comments about watermelon or jokes about out-of-wedlock children. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong for them to assault you for the insults, but really… what did we think would happen?

      Okay. Now let’s say you are a stupid young girl who is experimenting with her sexuality, dresses like a sleaze, leads a guy on, gets him all aroused and then says “no.” You are WELL within your legal rights. No means no, anytime the girl says it, and the man must respect that. Legally. But now think about the young drunk frat boy with little control over his urges, two seconds ago he was about to get laid and he has a raging hard-on, and you… who were so hot to trot, he thought… now say NO? It takes more self-control than most young men have, to walk away from that. He is NOT thinking about the law in that moment; he is hardly thinking at all. He is just one big bundle of urge to screw. And failure to understand THAT, is what makes the young girl stupid and puts her at risk.

      Don’t play with fire!

      • avatar D C says:

        You and I are exactly in step on this opinion.  In fact, I’m sitting here contemplating showing my 18 year old (virgin for sure) son your post.  We talk with him often — usually keep it light — and he assures us he considers sex to be too important to just toss around.  But he hasn’t been to college yet.  Nor has he really dated.  I know what’s coming (no pun intended).  I don’t worry about him having sex.  I worry about him making babies.  Or picking up an STD from some girl that didn’t think sex was too important to just toss around. 

      • avatar D C says:

        I just thought of something my husband the teacher/coach said years ago to the boys track team on the bus in the parking lot, and some VERY hooker-looking girls walked by and they were whistling and yelling come-ons:  “Just because she looks like a whore doesn’t mean you have the right to treat her like one.” 

  10. avatar phyllis Doyle Pepe says:

    Didn’t we cover this topic in DEPTH a few days ago, albeit with a side line re: “something about” Snooks? The fact that many men fit Shelia’s survival theory, many more are decent, nice guys that aren’t schumpting their live-in help and don’t succumb to every little tingle in their Johnsons. I like Lila’s comments re: women playing a part here. Except in the cases of assault, it takes two, or maybe three––some are more greedy than others. And I laughed at Snook’s “other woman” tale––the connection with THE WIFE at the end––sounded familiar. And it seems to me, if we are going back to biblical times, the fecundity was outrageous and wasn’t one of our Founders having a thing with one of his slaves who brought forth a child or two, and I think it was Grover Cleveland who had a love child stuck away somewheres? And then there’s Sue’s last sentence in regards to her question: “…aren’t you penalizing the woman…Isn’t this the type of thinking we’ve fought long and hard to change?” Watching how Elizabeth Warren was treated at her hearing yesterday and given that Planned Parenthood is being defunded in many states, I’d say we still have a looong way to go; this is all tied up in male superiority
    and sexual dominance.

    • avatar Maizie James says:

      Phyllis, I agree. “This is all tied up in male superiority and sexual dominance.”

      Regarding Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s alleged rape, there is a quote by Susan Brownmiller, which comes to mind. Unfortunately, the exact phrasing eludes me. However, it goes something like this:

      Man’s discovery of that his genitalia can inflict fear [and control] rates with the discovery of fire and the crude ax.

      • avatar Maizie James says:

        *My apology. I searched for quotations by Susan Brownmiller, but couldn’t find the exact quote.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      It certainly was one of the Kodak moments of my life and of course I always wondered if the other wives knew. Honestly I suspect they did. And things were fine in the kitchen so to speak. So they looked the other way.  It’s reality. And life.

      But the Arnold Schwarzeneggers and Dominique Strauss-Kahns are not having affairs. They are carving notches in the bedposts But some women carve notches in the bedposts as well. About a year ago a friend was bragging on a blog about how her husband had never cheated on her. I roared with laughter because of all the times she had cheated on him.

  11. avatar Kathy says:

    I don’t necessarily think it’s genetic hard-wiring or eons of social conditioning.  I think it’s arrogance of power. Whether it’s social, economic or phyisical power.  It’s arrogance of power.

    • avatar Lisa Bonnice says:

      I agree. I’m a little weary of men being given a pass just because “that’s the way they are.” It’s like excusing a porn addict by saying “men are visual creatures.” Pfft.

      Modern men are, theoretically, evolved human beings. If I can stop myself from cavewoman behavior, then they can stop themselves from acting like cavemen.

  12. avatar crystalclear says:

    it’s narcissistic behavior and we cannot lump all men into this category!  There are far far more good men than those with these behavorial issues.   I don’t think it is dominance.   I believe it is a personality disorder.

  13. avatar Elizabeth L says:

    They are both bottom feeders but because of their position in society have gotten away with their boorish behavior in the case of Arnold as for DSK it’s also criminal. If all goes right Arnold will lose his family and millions of dollars while DSK loses his family ,millions and liberty.

  14. avatar Testarosa says:

    Agree with you totally when you talk about arrogance of power, Kathy. With Strauss-Kahn, though, I would go one step further and add the cocksureness that comes with having diplomatic immunity (coupled with arrogance of power, it can be an ego trip of a particularly high order). My husband works for another U.N. offshoot and has diplomatic immunity, something he never requested nor wanted: it just comes with the territory. My son and I tease him about it from time to time but, in Strauss-Kahn’s case, it (along with France not having an extradition policy with the U.S.) could have posed very serious problems. Fortunately, he was nabbed minutes before his flight was due to take-off. Scary stuff and what a close call!

  15. avatar Miss Lee says:

    Arnold did not suprise me although I thought it was a bit tacky to do the maid.  I saw DSK interviewed recently on Charlie Rose and I thought he came across as an arrogant ass so I wasn’t suprised that he was capable of it.  Much has been made about the fact that he didn’t rush to the airport.  He ahd lunch first.  It made perfect sense to me.  That he though he was above being held responsible for his actions was perfectly in character with the man I saw on Rose’s show.  As for myself personally, after many years and many men, I am glad that I live alone with a female cat.  I just don’t have the patience for testosterone related behavior any more. Now with viagra, it never ends; it just becomes more tacky as each year passes.  

  16. avatar BeanCounter says:

    wow.  such bland generic male-bashing going on here, all based upon two extreme news stories?  I hate to break it to you but both men and women cheat.   Women are not 100% angels, and men are not 100% devils, though from some of the comments you’d think men were slaves to hormones unable to control their evil ways.    I expected more intelligent and balanced commentary.

    • avatar Testarosa says:

      Fully agree that some of the comments have veered off into “generic male-bashing” territory . However, commenters were responding to the WOW Question of the Week as it was spelled-out. The question’s wording was specifically, pointedly and even provocatively directed at “two extreme news stories” — pertaining to the “despicable behaviour” of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I replied twice and, in both instances, aimed to respond in that context and that context alone. Sweeping generalizations are just not my style. You have every reason to expect “more intelligent and balanced commentary” but, when readers are asked whether the suitable explanation is “a power rush or just boys being boys”, an array of varying and colourful (not bland) responses is to be expected.

  17. avatar Sue Fawcett says:

    I agree about the surprising nature of the generic male-bashing in this forum, as if men were a monolithic group incapable of fidelity and self-control. I have always despised being grouped into a stereotypical category of “women” in terms of a type of behavior, which is what has been done to men in regard to this discussion. By the same token, I think it is a disservice to men and society to excuse inappropriate or criminal behavior through embracing a stereotyped depiction of a gender. The perpetrator must be held accountable as an individual, not excused through a notion of enticement or gender stereotyping.

  18. avatar Bonnie O says:

    Once again I take issue with the question.  Arnold’s “despicable behavior” is in no way the same as the “despicable behavior” of Strauss-Kahn.  Therefore, the two men cannot be judged the same.  The question asked, unfortunately, appears to equate criminal behavior and adultry ….. if not one-and-the-same then, at least, comparable.  No so.

    When a spouse cheats that person while breaking a heart is not breaking the law.  Why a spouse cheats is not easily answered.  Some very nice folks have strayed from their marriage vows without the slightest intention of ending their marriage or even initiating a continued affair.  It is not pleasant and if the spouse finds out, then heartbreak begins.  But a spouse who cheats often and is always on the look-out for another love affair and still does not wish to end the marriage, is then suffering from a character flaw.  Perhaps Sheila is correct and a reasonable explanation for such behavior can only be found in biblical terms.

    Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, is alleged to have committed violent acts upon an unwilling woman.  His behavior is criminal and can only be explained by those who have studied the issue of why men rape women.  There are many explanations beginning with the need to exercise power, create fear and a sense of male entitlement.  If convicted, Strauss-Kahn should be put away for a long time.

    The despicable behavior of Strauss-Kahn cannot be equated to that of a cheating husband. 

  19. avatar Mark Rowe says:

    Men are terralbe arn’t they? But women are just as bad! This day and time marrage has been cheepened by lawyers who have made a business out of it, making it to easy for gold digging women and men. This and the fact that gay and multi-partner groups now wanting there “legal” moment in the sun. It just seems like the world has gone the way of soddom and gamora!

  20. avatar kait marcus says:

    As a lifelong single woman who’s never been anxious to marry, I am now in my 50s. When I date men in their 50s or 60s, guess what I eventually encounter? Yes, the failing penis of a man who’s scared to death of old age. The first episodes are “great,” because the man is conquering new territory. But soon, limpness occurs. Men like this need massive stimulation to stay consistently excited/erect. And yes, they love hitting on the hired help, because it reminds them of what big, powerful, important men they need to believe they still are.

    On a completely separate track, let us not forget the female participants in these interludes. Sometimes, they are unwilling, as was Strauss-Kahn’s. But others, such as Schwarzenegger’s often see opportunity knocking and behave accordingly.

  21. avatar Davina Wolf says:

    Infidelity:  Who do you suppose these errant husbands are dating?   

    I worked for ten years for an international company that had been number one in the world for a decade.  Because of its fame and general wonderfulness, the company had its pick of the sharpest, best educated and most attractive men and women.  Several times per year, we all flew to national meetings, where I was astonished at the numbers of married women eagerly taking out after men.  One woman returning to work from having her first baby three months earlier said she felt ”hot, hot, hot”, couldn’t wait to get hold of a particular single guy, and did.  Relationships between people married to others were quite common.    

    Later, I dated a very homely, very rich man for three years.  Again, I was amazed at the numbers of women who would do anything–just anything–to get to him because he was rich.  He was well aware of this and took advantage of it.  I don’t wish for another rich or famous partner.     

    In most of the relationships that I’ve seen, one or both people stray.  Fidelity is probably not a natural state for humans, though I wish it were.  

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Some do get lucky I guess. I never did. I miss the companionship but I don’t miss the occasional wondering whether they are where they say they are and if they’re alone. Always remembering the night the wife called me looking for the husband. And both of us realizing he was not with the other. “If he’s not with you, then who is he with?” We both dumped him.  And I suspect she remembers it as well. There is a lot of focus on men. Women do cheat as well. Maybe they just don’t get caught as often?

  22. avatar Bella Mia says:

    It’s no surprise that men develop compulsive sexual habits when they become accustomed to indulging themselves. It’s like the sin of gluttony. The appetite grows and grows. Mr IMF had a gluttonous appetite for sex. Who among us hasn’t tamped down the insistent demands of our own appetite for food? And we know what it feels like to pig out. Mr. IMF continued to PIG OUT sexually because unlike with overeating, his clothes weren’t getting tighter, so he seemed not to realize that a day of reckoning was in store. If he followed Tigers path he’d be in rehab right now for an “addiction” but it is really a compulsion.

    Arnold has hurt his wife but he has really hurt his children, because they carry the pain that their mother feels. They feel helpless to alleviate her anguish, and so they feel it themselves. children of this type of divorce are now shown to have a higher incidence of stoke, and earlier deaths. It is a family tragedy, and I agree that unmarried women in a household pose a huge risk – it’s pheromones, men and womens brains are attracted to them unconsciously. But ultimately we make choices. We do not have to live like slaves to our passions.

  23. avatar Dannie Pipes says:

    There are no excuses and boys will be boys in the most thoughtless perspective I have ever heard. I have walked in Maria’s shoes. She took her time and made her move to stop the foolishness her marriage became when she was able to handle it. In my case I waited until graduations and weddings were complete. I ran out of excuses for not taking control of my life. It was either end it or end me. It took more courage and fortitude than I thought I was capable of pulling from the depths that I felt I had sunk to. It was being flaunted and thrown in my face constantly and he really thought I was too stupid to figure it out. My children stood by me and his relationship with them is just now-12 years later-beginning to mend. Their trust will never be repaired. Illegal? Maybe not but the many lies these men demonstrate they are capable of should tell anyone that they have no ethics, do you really want a liar to handle your money or your government? I am not bashing all men, only men who think they are beyond reproach and take sick pleasure in destroying others lives. I am happily married to someone who is devoted to me, I trust him because I know he respects and honors me. These narcissistic, pathological liars deserve to be exposed for the souless individuals that they are.