Dear Margo | 09/10/2009 2:00 am

Dear Margo: The Other Side of the Coin

A husband hates his wife, but they have two lovely children together … Margo Howard’s bright advice

The Other Side of the Coin

Dear Margo: OMG — I can’t believe that you (or my wife) can’t figure out why a man wouldn’t want to have sex with his wife. There are so many reasons that have nothing to do with being indifferent or gay — medical, girlfriend, performance issues, etc. In my case, I can’t stand my wife. A little history: We dated for a few years, and then it just seemed time to get married. We were both in our mid-30s, wanting children. She seemed like she’d be a good mother. During our engagement, she would get nasty, but usually apologized. I thought it was the stress of planning a wedding. By the time we had been married a couple of years, her complaints and temper had gotten so bad that I left her for a couple of weeks. I came back after she pleaded. It was apparent that she would not change and it was time to end things. Of course, that’s when she told me she was pregnant.

We now have two lovely children. I have not had sex with her since conceiving No. 2. She knows I look at women and is concerned that I look at porn — and then calls me gay. I am not attracted to her in the slightest. She is like an annoying little sister, and whatever I do for her is never enough. So why am I still with her? Any lawyer will tell you that she would get the kids, and then they wouldn’t have a chance at anything resembling a loving home life. — Not a Martyr, Just Protecting My Kids.

Dear Not: You aren’t the first person to have misgauged a potential partner. The unedited version of your letter makes your life sound like the road company of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Because I think children pay a price for a loveless home with insults being hurled, I would encourage you to reconsider living apart and seeking shared custody. Sometimes divorce is better than a miserable home situation. To be out of the house does not equate to being out of your children’s lives. Should you choose to stay, bear in mind they will not be pre-teenagers forever. Good luck figuring things out. — Margo, thornily

Hostesses, Guests and Allergies

Dear Margo: These days food allergies and sensitivities are more prevalent than ever. Quite often when I’m hosting a small group, I’m aware of at least one person who has lactose intolerance, a gluten sensitivity, a peanut allergy, etc. My question is this: As a hostess of a small gathering, is it incumbent on me to accommodate their sensitivities when I’m preparing a meal? My assumption has always been that it is, and to go out of my way to find recipes that are suitable. However, some friends have told me this is unnecessary and "over and above" the call of duty as a hostess. Even my friends with allergies tell me not to worry, that they’ll bring their own food, but that doesn’t feel very hospitable. What is etiquette in this situation? — Eager To Please

Dear Eag: You are right that food allergies abound. Many restaurants now routinely ask if anyone must avoid certain foods. For a small party at home, you could not, of course, accommodate different food requirements, and no one expects this. If you know of one person who is, say, lactose intolerant, you might plan your meal accordingly, but no one assumes you would prepare a dinner without lactose, gluten, shellfish, nuts, and I could go on, but I won’t. Take your friends’ advice and don’t worry about this. Most people with allergies can forego one dish and still find other things they can eat. And I remember that Carol Channing used to bring her macrobiotic meals in a paper bag to the best restaurants! — Margo, realistically

***
Dear Margo is written by Margo Howard, Ann Landers’ daughter. All letters must be sent via e-mail to dearmargo@creators.com. Due to a high volume of e-mail, not all letters will be answered. To read more about Margo Howard, click here.

Every Thursday and Friday, you can find "Dear Margo" and her latest words of wisdom on our home page at www.wowowow.com. Or better yet, click to sign up for an instant email alert that will send a message right to your in-box every time a new "Dear Margo" column is posted on wowOwow.

Click here for all "Dear Margo" columns.

271 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Re: Ltr #2

My friend learned that his son’s Ann Arbor middle school is trying to ban peanut products from the school to avoid triggering any lurking peanut allergies. Unfortunately, My friend’s son is autistic, and will only eat peanut butter sandwiches.

I have friends who also have a variety of dietary restrictions, and it really does all work out. there’s always a wide variety of dishes at every party, and everyone winds up with at least two things they can eat — even after they bring one for their own insurance.

By Mjit RaindancerStahl on 09/10/2009 1:29 am

e-mail alert

Your friend might want to try soynut butter and "sun" butter (made from sunflower seeds). They’re almost indistinguishable from peanut butter. And they would give the kid some variety in his proteins.

By Amy Gorin on 09/10/2009 2:34 am

e-mail alert

Amy: What a helpful suggestion.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 09/10/2009 9:12 am

e-mail alert

There is a tasty almond butter too I hear. Some say it is also healthier as there is nothing added to it unlike most peanut butter.

By Lym BO on 09/10/2009 9:48 pm

e-mail alert

I so disagree with people trying to force the masses to conform to the needs of any one child, or in this case, some phantom allergy. It’s exceedingly unfair. If a child has a deathly allergy to a common and very healthful food, perhaps he shouldn’t be in that school. Bans do not eliminate a threat, they only slightly reduce it and then create an attractive nuisance. When was the last time you saw middle school kids just kick the dirt and say "bummer" when told that can’t do something. Seriously.

By Karleen S on 09/10/2009 8:51 am

e-mail alert

If a child has a deathly allergy to a common and very healthful food, perhaps he shouldn’t be in that school.

I have to ask- where do you purpose a child with an allergy to, say, peanuts go in that case? If no one ever forces "the masses to conform to the needs of any one child", no school would ever ban peanuts. Should children with life-threatening allergies be forced into homeschooling? Or should we open up new "peanut-free" schools for them all to go to?

I think it’s one thing to force a policy on the school if the action in question doesn’t affect anyone, but this isn’t just the fact that some random student may-or-may-not like peanuts. Most banning of peanuts in schools involve a student (or more than one) who could die if exposed to peanuts. Granted, that may not be the case in this school, as the original poster said it was just in case someone may be allergic. Of course, it’s also possible that some student really is allergic and they’re just not giving out names so no one can target "that kid who got our PB&J taken away from us".

By Deanna F on 09/10/2009 9:03 am

e-mail alert

If your child could die if exposed to peanuts, would you want to send him to a public school? In our society, where more and more people think rules don’t apply to them, where kids might "tease" another who says they’re allergic to peanuts by bringing one and making him eat it, and any other issues no one could ever control, do you want to risk it? The people looking for the needs of the few to outweigh the needs of the many want the allergies to be considered disabilities. This opens up a great many options for parents who love their kids enough to not risk putting them in harm’s way.

By Karleen S on 09/10/2009 9:19 am

e-mail alert

Of course I’d still send them to public school. But I’d make sure that it was a peanut-free school and that there were stiff penalties for breaking the rules against bringing them in. You seem to be implying (forgive me if I’m wrong about this) that we should be accommodating the potential rule-breakers and placing the burden on the allergic students (and parents of those students) who’ve done nothing wrong. To be pragmatic and avoid the kind of bullying situation you’ve given an example of, I’d probably also tell my child not to let anyone but the adults in the school know about their allergy.

You also seem to be forgetting that home-schooling is not always an option. If I’m a single parent working two jobs just to keep a roof over my children’s heads… how am I going to find the time or the resources to homeschool?

If you have a minute to read it, this is a fairly good article highlighting the reasoning for the "peanut-free" rules in the Ann Arbor school district-

http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/peanutfree.htm

If you don’t have the time to read the article, the most important part to non-allergic students’ parents comes here-

"I would say to all parents who have children that are in the classroom or lunchroom with allergic children that it’s important to put yourself in their shoes," says McMorris. "Peanuts are just a small factor in life and if these children have life-threatening reactions to this food, there are always alternatives. I doubt any of us would want a child to have a fatal reaction in a classroom because another family neglected to follow the rules that have been laid forth by the school district."

That and when they point out around 6-7 million Americans have food allergies.

By Deanna F on 09/10/2009 9:40 am

e-mail alert

No, most schools that ban peanuts do so regardless of whether there is any student attending who has a deathly allergy to it because they don’t want any hint of liability. Having a severe peanut allergy is extremely rare. Also, why on earth would the kid with the peanut allergy be eating someone else’s lunch? I suppose if you have first graders you might have to worry about such things, but at a certain point someone with such an allergy needs to learn to not eat things that might have peanuts.

Not releasing the kid’s name could be dangerous. The other kids also need to know not to offer him things with peanut or peanut butter in them.

By R.J.B. Reed on 09/10/2009 10:42 am

e-mail alert

Nowadays they may ban peanuts without specific students being allergic but, iirc, the peanut-free rules started popping up when parents of allergic children pressured the school districts due to the dangers faced by their children.

And you may want to read the article whose link I provided above. Peanut allergies aren’t all that rare and they’re actually becoming more common. Also, you don’t have to eat peanuts to have a reaction- you can be affected by even a very small amount (1/50 of a peanut) of peanut residue left on something else (the article cites a boy who used a computer mouse with residue from the hands of a classmate and then rubbed his eyes and mouth- that was enough to cause a reaction) Lastly, it can be difficult for even an adult to decipher ingredient listings on processed foods. Many of them don’t outright say "peanuts" on the label and those who are allergic can even have reactions from products that don’t have any peanuts in them, but are processed in plants that also manufacturer foods with peanuts in them (cross contamination)

As for releasing the names of those who are allergic- If we ban all peanut products, that solves the problem of children offering those who are allergic peanuts as well.

By Deanna F on 09/10/2009 12:25 pm

e-mail alert

I’m sorry this is opening a cans of worms. Are we next going to ban gluten, milk products, apples, strawberries. tree nuts, latex, etc.? I know one of you is going to say some of these aren’t life threatening, but that varies by child & by exposure. My nephew reacts violently to touching milk products. His second ever exposure to milk as an infant caused an anaphylatic (life threatening reaction). His parents have taught him what to avoid, they pack his lunch AND he has an epi pen on him should the need arise. We thought one of my children also had the milk allergy (or sensitivity). While we were ruling it out I went shopping and what a pain in the arse. I couldn’t find bread or butter without milk products. I had to go to a larger grocer. It really is such a big issue for the kids and parents. But we can’t expect accommodations be made for every individual. Our children need to learn ownership/responsibility & wipe stuff down that they touch (or use their sleeve). I mean really what if the kid goes to Target & touches a door handle who someone eating a candy bar just touched? Will Target need to stop selling peanut products? Next no milk, latex, … And you know that the parents of the kid with the milk allergy will say, "but you banned peanuts" (which is obviously a bit easier to do) and then cry discrimination.

By Lym BO on 09/10/2009 9:45 pm

e-mail alert

Most of the things you listed either, as far as I know, don’t produce a reaction by mere residue or inhalation (and yes, I read the article you linked, which says right in it "In summary, inhalation of peanut protein can cause allergic reactions") or are usually not used anyway (I don’t know if they’ve outright banned it but things like latex gloves aren’t used in the schools in my area because of allergy issues)

As for milk allergies, from what I’ve gathered in a very quick search- "Milk or milk containing foods are less likely to cause severe reactions as compared to peanut. Very rarely very sensitive individuals have died from a severe allergic reaction to milk." and "Severe reactions from casual contact are extremely rare." according to Sydney Children’s Hospital. Now we’re getting into a situation of weighing the costs and benefits of banning things. With peanut-allergic children, the costs and hassles of banning peanuts does not outweigh the likelihood of a severe reaction. With milk allergies, the likelihood of severe reactions are less and the costs of removing milk products are higher (as you said, it’s more difficult to remove milk than peanuts) so milk products are not banned.

And though I have nothing to back it up other than my own clean up experience in the kitchen, I would think milk residue is also easier to get rid of than peanut residue.

By Deanna F on 09/10/2009 10:54 pm

e-mail alert

Actually, milk contact can cause an anaphylactic reaction. Yes, rare, but tell that to the parents whose kid is that one. My nephew is one of them. My point is this banning is endless. My child is actually allergic/sensitive to squash/pumpkins. Thus far it is just ingestion & I have not read any contact allergies out there… But maybe she will be the first. Maybe we should ban pumpkins. See the line of thinking it promotes?

Perhaps, because I’m a medical professional, I understood article differently than you. Inhalation/contact can cause a reaction but the reaction would be similar to someone with a cat allergy: itchy eyes, rash, etc, BUT NOT life threatening. So should the masses abstain from PB & peanut products because little Billy might get a rash & itchy eyes?

Latex inhalation can cause anaphylaxis. It is contained in paint & if the school is being painted the child would react. Mostly likely no one would figure it out (and then what?) . We had a nurse who reacted. Luckily, she figured it out since it was a new allergy & she had read up on it. She went to the ER & got treated and transferred to another unit until the painting was done & aired out.

By Lym BO on 09/10/2009 11:54 pm

e-mail alert

Ok, Lym. I’m going to ask you to try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Actually, milk contact can cause an anaphylactic reaction.

Did I say it couldn’t? No, I quoted that it’s extremely rare, not that it’s impossible.

See the line of thinking it promotes?

Again- you are the only one who sees this as a slippery slope. The banning begins and ends at peanuts. Why? Not because that’s the only thing in the world people are allergic to, that’s for sure (so you can give it a rest with pointing out that- yes, in fact, peanuts are not the only thing people can be allergic to) It’s because the relative frequency of peanut allergies in children, coupled with the relative wide-spread methods of exposure, coupled with the relative severity of reactions from said exposure, coupled with the relative ease of making schools a peanut free environment- all this makes it a no-brainer. Does this apply to milk? No. Does this apply squash/pumpkins? No. Does this apply to gluten? No. Does this apply to <insert whatever allergy here>? Probably not.

Perhaps, because I’m a medical professional, I understood article differently than you.

Perhaps, because I’ve better reading comprehension skills than you, I understood the article correctly. The article says, “In summary, inhalation of peanut protein can cause allergic reactions (but usually not systemic anaphylaxis), while odors can cause conditioned physiologic responses.”

Note the key word- usually. That means systemic anaphylaxis is unlikely, but can occur.

Also- “There are case reports of severe asthma from airborne exposure to food” and “The chance of a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction from airborne exposure is very small.” so you were wrong when you said “the reaction would be similar to someone with a cat allergy: itchy eyes, rash, etc, BUT NOT life threatening”.

And you’ve still done nothing to address the fact that your own “supporting” article admits that there’s still risk for residual exposure, which is more likely than airborne exposure to be the main source of exposure, to cause a severe reaction.

It is contained in paint & if the school is being painted the child would react.

Where I live, they don’t paint schools with the kids around due to the paint fumes, latex-in-paint notwithstanding.

Lastly, just as a side note, the study they cite in your linked paper by Sicherer, if it’s the study I believe it is, had a sampling of 30 children. With that small of a number, I’d like to see it re-done a few times with a larger group of kids to verify the results are accurate.

By Deanna F on 09/11/2009 12:27 am

e-mail alert

In allergy medicine, one would be hard pressed to find a doc that would write "never" so that write not usually since they are variables. Banning of peanuts for this slim possibility is absurd.

I do agree the number of children is rather small.

BTW, there was a recent study where they found injecting minuscle amounts of peanut powder under the kids’ skin resulted in some kids being allergy free so this could likely be a moot debate.

By Lym BO on 09/11/2009 3:41 pm