http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23561606

Despicable. He busted prostitution rings and now he's a client? He was with a high-$$ call girl the night before Valentine's Day? And the best is ... he's now apologizing, why? BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT! Ughhhh... Sickening. I SOOOO feel for his wife. How humiliating.

Well, like our mayor here in LA, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this gets swept back under the rug where it was before the story broke.

-ol' 2long

This is the same dude who wanted to give illegal aliens driver's licenses, right?

Seems as though his sense of right and wrong might be a tad out of kilter, eh?

I'm so disappointed. Spitzer was someone I honestly believed in.

Maybe he'll redeem himself.

His targeting seems suspicious.

He has admitted to doing this, so redemption is unlikely for at least the prostitution part. They are looking now at where he got the cash - there is some suspicion that it might be public funds.

It's been reported he wasn't actually the "target" of the investigation, but was actually caught by happenstance apparently. The wiretap was reportedly not for him, but for something else and they got him in the works.

We will probably know more as details come out.


I would absolutely hate to be his betrayed wife. And I feel terrible for his daughters. This family is going through a very public d-day, and his wife's heart must be broken. I wish MB could reach her.

SB

In the photo of him and his wife on foxnews.com, she looked absolutely hearbroken.

And, yeah, where did the money come from. These gals apparently cost anywhere from, I think, $1K to $3700 per "call"!

I feel so badly for his family!

2Long, at least the TV station did the right thing and fired the mayor's OW!

LC:

Indeed. But I wish our city would fire our philandering mayor. He's a repeat offender. I hope his BW takes him 2 the cleaners.

But I'm sorta p.o.'d. He pretended 2 be supportive of our historic district and the Southwest Museum, and I hear tell he's involved in a move 2 lift a moratorium on building high rises in our neighborhood. If he succeeds, I'll take our historic home apart and reassemble it elsewhere!

-ol' 2long

The guy gets busted on an unrelated phone tap and shows a prior history with the same escort service. Give me a break. .

I am a believer that the character of a man is best shown as he stares down his self-made abyss. By taking the coward's way out, dragging his poor wife in front of the cameras in a pathetic attempt to win sympathy, he PROVED THAT HIS POlITICAL CAREER IS PARAMOUNT TO HIS MARRIAGE. To me this demeaning stage appearance far overshadows the sexual betrayal.

He has 3 teenage daughters. My heart breaks for them. They must be mortified.

By taking the coward's way out, dragging his poor wife in front of the cameras in a pathetic attempt to win sympathy, he PROVED THAT HIS POlITICAL CAREER IS PARAMOUNT TO HIS MARRIAGE. To me this demeaning stage appearance far overshadows the sexual betrayal.
***********************************************

I don't see why the wife had to get up there with him........I wonder whose idea that was.....it didn't work for me either, I thought it made him look like more of a creep.......to expect her to endure further humiliation.

I think his wife looked capable enough to not be dragged anywhere. She's a big girl that made her own decision to be there.
He's a scum bag...but let's not assume that she is without any power.

Before D-day, I was considered a strong and independent girl capable of "making my own decisions." After D-day, I was a shell of my former self.

Shock, confusion, disbelief...extreme pain and anger, yet wanting my "H" back and willing to do what it takes...lots of confusing emotions and very little clear thinking.

Perhaps it is different for different people, but D-day left me feelings powerless and devastated. Looking back, I did many things that were not wrong, but certainly weren't strong.

I think one day she will look back on that press conference and feel even more degraded, unloved, uncherished and hurt after realizing that her WH would allow her to stand there and face a crowd of reporters at such an awful time.

I'm disgusted both by the story and his appearance before the press, and I hope he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

No way! The question is fair play and is a separate issue from any satisfying name-calling of Spitzer you might want to get into. I'm not defending him. His political career has taken a precipitous fall. I'm disappointed and clearly he should resign.

I also believe that politically-motivated Federal investigations and prosecutions are a bad thing, and this story has some things about it that seem weird. It's fair to question the investigation given the track record of Junior's DoJ.

Yeah! And since when do we come down on people for not trying to protect their marriages and families? Weird.

But man do I feel for Silda Wall Spitzer. She looked like I imagined she feels right now. Every other footage I've seen of her, she's this beautiful smiling woman.

Agreed.

A big girl in the maelstrom of her husbands doing. She did have a choice, but may be under so much stress right now, and confused, hurt, shocked, that she MAY be going thru the motions set up by some legal representative to her husband. Regardless, big girl or not, her husband is a coward to not face that crowd alone. HE'S a big boy, yes?

that she MAY be going thru the motions set up by some legal representative to her husband. Regardless, big girl or not, her husband is a coward to not face that crowd alone.
_____________________________________________

That was the point I was trying to make...whose ever bright idea it was to have her up there with him made a mistake IMO.

When watching the news, I could see adultery in his face.
Amazing when you have been through this crap so much that you can even recognize adultery in the facial features/demeanor of someone.
It may sound crazy, but I can see it.

I agree with you nia, he was a coward to have her standing next to him. She probably agreed, but not on her own. How dare "anyone" ask her to do that at such a vulnerable time! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Lady

I was so horrified to see his poor wife standing there next to him... The look of anguish and shock on her face was so obvious.

And then they kept replaying the file footage of them with their three daughters, all smiling and happy, not having a clue of what their dear old dad was up to... How awful it must be for them, having to go to school the next day and face questioning looks from everyone.. Ugh...

AGG

Knowing how these things work, I just don't think he just found out yesterday. I think she's had at least a few days to process this.
You all do make some good points though about how she might not be thinking clearly. He is a coward for a lot of reasons and I guess having his wife by his side is just another example of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if his wife has known or suspected for awhile now.
It does seem to be the trend to have the wife stand by her man in situations like this (McGreevey,Craig,Clinton etc.) I don't doubt that some PR person says it's helpful to the adulterer to have his spouse and family stand up there showing their support........but, I would be more inclined to think he was repentant and humbled if he faced the music all by himself and insisted his family be protected from more humiliation due to HIS bad behavior.

As much as I am for saving marriages, I am happy that Villaraigosa's wife left him, and became an exception to this general rule.

AGG

Hm. I'm surprised people on this board are so cavalier about the choices people make in this situation. If you're lucky you don't get to practice for this stuff. Down the road it's possible Spitzer will regret agreeing to have Silda join him on the dais. It's also possible that some day she'll be glad she was up there.

This "stand by your man" talk is actually shocking to me. If my spouse was a public figure and was caught cheating, and she was contrite, and I wanted to try to protect the marriage, I have no doubt at all that I'd be up there next to the podium too, if asked.

This "stand by your man" talk is actually shocking to me. If my spouse was a public figure and was caught cheating, and she was contrite, and I wanted to try to protect the marriage, I have no doubt at all that I'd be up there next to the podium too, if asked.

***********************************
interesting....I see it differently.
I suppose I can understand this IF you truly felt your spouse was contrite or if there was some prior agreement.....I don't really know about politicians (or their spouses) motives.

I come from the perspective that *I* think he would have looked MORE contrite if he had made it a point to NOT have her stand up there w/ him.....to not have asked or expected that of her but to be considerate enough to insist she didn't have to endure more public humiliation.

If it had been me, I would never expect my spouse to endure such public humiliation for MY benefit.

Exactly. The point is, it was still all about him. His wife looked miserable and in shock. If she wants to stay in the marriage, that's up to her, but he should have protected her and gone out there to face the music alone.

Having the wives up there just reinforces the idea that "it's only the families who are hurt, so let them figure it out. The rest of us weren't hurt, so why should we care?"

What a pig this man is. In the clips, his wife looked young and happy. Yesterday she looked like a very old woman.

On the news they keep showing her face while standing up there and saying, "I wonder what's going through her mind?"

I can tell you.

She was thinking, "He used to be my hero. He used to be so very special to me. Now he's just another lying, cheating pig."

That's what she was thinking.
Mulan

Me too nia. I would never ask her to stand up there. But none of us know how that decision happened and it is wrong to assume.

I think I'm stepping out of this thread. It's all just a lot of gossip, isn't it?

But what if SHE CHOSE to stand up there with him...We can't ASSUME that's not the case...

She MAY have known about this for awhile...

I wouldn't have liked for my H to FORBID me from going if that's what I wanted to do...

He's the ONE that should be ASHAMED..

Why should she stay home?

I LIVED this BTW, my H WAS in LOCAL POLITICS...

He had a VERY PUBLIC..FALL FROM GRACE...

People still STARE at me in WONDER...

YUCK!!

****************************

You are very right......we do not know and i am not assuming one way or the other.
It just *felt* wrong to me..... politics often does. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I wouldn't have liked for my H to FORBID me from going if that's what I wanted to do...

He's the ONE that should be ASHAMED..

Why should she stay home?
******************************

very good point mimi....It could certainly have been that way.
I never said FORBID and I surely don't think any Wayward has the right to forbid his spouse whatever might help them heal.


In McGreevey's case, I believe his wife knew for a long time and they may have discussed what they were going to do if his "secrets' were discovered. It could have been that way w/ this guys wife...there are lots of possibilities....

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer with his wife, Silda

Shannon Stapleton, Reuters
Snag this module or subscribe to feed.
Governor's Wife
Stands by Her Man

Would You Do the Same Thing?
Political Machine: Spitzer Scandal
***********************

Just saw this new headline.
LOL

Any thoughts or comments on Dr. Laura's take on the scandal du jour? I'm not real impressed with her assessment in terms of being SUSCEPTIBLE. That removes personal responsiblity, doesn't it?

No, I think she is right...and I think she is in line with the thinking of the Harley's as far as that goes. I don't think it takes away HIS responsibility for what he has done...I see it more as trying to explain the state of the marriage pre-affair.

She largely has it right.

While his wife is not to blame for his choices, she may (or may not) be to blame for creating an environment where he thought his best chance to get his emotional needs met was through prostitution.

We don't know the truth. However, if a spouse withholds an emotional need from another, they are fully responsible for creating an environment where the other is not having his/her needs met.

SF is the hardest, because we believe that it is ONLY legitimately met in marriage. If a spouse refuses to meet this need, they do so at great potential peril.

We really don't know what his wife did or did not do. But Dr Laura is largely consistent with Dr Harley's teaching on this topic.

I think her assessment in a general sense is in keeping with the harley's point of view..but there are many other factors to consider in this case...It's all speculation because we really don't know the state of their marriage, and for all we know, his wife could be familiar with the importance of meeting her husband's needs and she may have been aware of what his most important needs are... she could have been doing that...we can't know for sure... Hypothetically speaking, If his wife was meeting all of his needs and he just happens to think because he is a powerful politician with money and power at his fingertips and a sense of entitlement to boot with the intention of having a "secret life"..he would probably make the choice to have an affair anyway.. just because he can. There are those that would have an affair because its a chosen lifestyle rather than because there needs aren't being met...no matter how small of a percentage, those types DO exist..What we DO know is that he made the choice to step outside of his marriage and that responsibility is his to own.

The guy’s a scumbag, all the way through. It’s not just sex; it’s also money, as usual.

--------
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

After a report that Gov. Eliot Spitzer had patronized a prostitution ring, officials in Albany greeted the news with shock, and some on Wall Street, a frequent target of his investigations as attorney general, were unsympathetic.

The rendezvous that established Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with high-priced prostitutes occurred last month in one of Washington’s grandest hotels, but the criminal investigation that discovered the tryst began last year in a nondescript office building opposite a Dunkin’ Donuts on Long Island, according to law enforcement officials.

There, in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said.

The investigators working out of the three-story office building, which faces Veterans Highway, typically review such reports, the officials said. But this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose of the movement of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business.

The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes — maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators.

Soon, the I.R.S. agents, from the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division, were working with F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors from Manhattan who specialize in political corruption.

The inquiry, like many such investigations, was a delicate one. Because the focus was a high-ranking government official, prosecutors were required to seek the approval of the United States attorney general to proceed. Once they secured that permission, the investigation moved forward.

At the outset, one official said, it seemed like a bread-and-butter inquiry into political corruption, the kind of case the F.B.I. squad, known internally by the designation C14, frequently pursues.

But before long, the investigators learned that the money was being moved to pay for sex and that the transactions were being manipulated to conceal Mr. Spitzer’s connection to payments for meetings with prostitutes, the official said.

Then, with the assistance of a confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using, the investigators were able to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service.

The wiretaps, along with the records of bank accounts held in the names of the shell companies, revealed a world of prostitutes catering to wealthy men. At the center was the Emperor’s Club, which arranged “dates” with more than 50 beautiful young women in New York, Paris, London, Miami and Washington.

But its finances moved through the shell companies — the QAT Consulting Group, QAT International and Protech Consulting — which held bank accounts into which clients wired their payments, according to court papers in the case.

One of the booking agents, a woman named Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, told a client that wiring his payments to QAT Consulting was safe because it would show up “like as a business transaction,” according to an affidavit filed in federal court the case.
But the transactions proved to be anything but safe for Mr. Spitzer, who, aides said on Monday, was weighing possible resignation.

Last week, Ms. Lewis was one of four people charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan with operating the prostitution ring. Also arrested were Mark Brener, 62, who is accused of heading the operation; Cecil Suwal, 23, who is said to have managed it day to day; and Tanya Hollander, 36, who worked part time as a booker.

The affidavit, which was unsealed on Thursday when the four were arrested, details the secretly recorded conversations that officials said captured Mr. Spitzer’s efforts to arrange a Washington meeting with a prostitute on Feb. 13. It also describes the young woman’s report to the booking agent on her encounter with the governor.

Anyone who actually wants a political office should be automatically disqualified…

------
What sex scandals say about politics
By Carol M. Ostrom Seattle Times health reporter

When a married politician resigns after allegations that he had sex with a young man in an out-of-town hotel room — particularly when he tips off the cops himself — the obvious question is: "What was he thinking?"

In the case of state Rep. Richard Curtis, a 48-year-old Republican from La Center, Clark County, no one knows — yet. Curtis, who resigned Wednesday, has declined to elaborate, on the advice of his lawyer.

But because cases like his are becoming so familiar, experts in politics, risk-taking behavior and psychology have plenty to say. They recall the indiscretions of former President Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton; former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who announced on live television in 2004 that he was a "gay American"; and the late Spokane Mayor Jim West, who last year was ousted from office after a scandal involving alleged gay sex.

On Monday, Curtis insisted to The Columbian in Vancouver, Wash., that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt.

But in police reports released Tuesday, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he'd had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.

What's going on when politicians risk everything for a quickie? Do they have some innate need to take risks — a sort of Evel Knievel-like urge to juggle chainsaws at the top of a ladder? Or are they just clueless, like the guy who lights up while pouring gas into his lawn mower?

Is the power of a closeted sex drive so strong that it just can't be resisted for long? And why would someone repressing sexual urges become a Republican politician instead of finding a job with a private company where no one would care?

"There really is a pattern here," says John Gastil, a University of Washington professor who studies communications in politics.

Curtis' encounter allegedly also included his appearance at a porn shop in women's lacy lingerie. Even so, it only qualifies as a "medium-grade sex scandal," says Brian Gladue, a behavioral biologist at the University of North Texas Health Science Center who has studied sexual behavior.

"What's his excuse?" asks Gladue. "That will tell you an enormous amount about how they're going to do their own risk management."

Oddly or admirably, Curtis, who told police he had spent his career in risk management, apparently was candid when they interviewed him. Although he told police he gave the young man money "for gas," he admitted to the sex, according to the police report.

He didn't say he was sleepwalking, Gladue notes. He didn't say the whole thing was a setup by Democrats out to get him. He didn't say the lacy lingerie was just a Halloween costume he was "test-driving." He didn't say he had a compulsion he couldn't control and offer to enter rehab.

He has insisted that he was a victim, however. "I am not the criminal here," he told an editor at the Columbian.

At 48, Curtis — like McGreevey — now faces the sudden destruction of the life he's built.
Why would any politician take such risks?

For the answer to that, start with the notion that people who go into politics are more likely than others to be risk-takers, say experts in the field. To a large extent, they're people who are comfortable inviting scrutiny because that's what politicians do to get elected.

"Politics tends to attract risk-takers," says Frank Farley, a Temple University psychologist who has studied risk-taking, politics and human motivation. "It's an uncertain job, you live at the whim of the electorate, there's no tenure. It's often short-term — you're in for two or four years, and you're out. Then you have to start all over again in some field."

Often, successful politicians got there largely because of that personal chutzpah, a risk-taking predilection honed and encouraged by success. For those who come from modest circumstances or small towns, risk-taking is often the only ticket out, as it was for Bill Clinton, who fueled his brainpower with nerve to overcome a childhood broken home and financial hardship.

"Often one of the ways to get ahead is to take risks, be bold; if you don't, the world is going to pass you by, because you don't have anything besides your psychology — no wealth, you're not a Bush, not born into money," Farley says.

Such risk-takers are likely more prone to do things others consider unsafe, says Gladue. "It's not that they're brain-damaged and they can't evaluate the dangers; they just have a higher threshold for risk than most people. [To them] it's not risky."

Everyone finds a level of risk they're comfortable with, Gladue says. They'll hike but not climb. Or they'll climb Mount Rainier, but only in the summer. Or they'll climb Mount Rainier in all seasons, but not Mount Everest.

Some people just keep "pushing the limits," Gladue says. "Everybody knows somebody like that. You just don't want to be in a car with them, because they're not managing risk as well as you'd like them to be."

There's plenty of research indicating that such sensation-seeking personalities are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior as well, Gladue says. "This is part of who they are. Their temperament gets a little watered down as they get older, but it doesn't go away."

Some evolutionary biologists have argued that politicians, as the modern-day equivalent of the "alpha male" gorilla, are even more tempted than others by the lure of sexual conquests, almost as a right of office. After all, they say, in nature it's the alpha male who gets the sexual access.Of course, these days such "evolutionary" urges are generally tempered by pragmatism, they add.

For some people, hiding an inner life that's in direct conflict with an outer life becomes intolerable, says Farley. "You want to bring some alignment, some freedom, from that continual, conflictual stress."

At some point, the pain of the conflict itself may become a powerful motivator to resolve the differences, Farley says.

McGreevey, in his tell-all book, "The Confession," wrote that "the closet starves a man and when he gets a chance, he gorges 'til it sickens him."

Curtis, like many who have found themselves in this situation, has a wife and children. He ran for office as a conservative Republican.

Farley says that, too, is understandable."You're creating a cover for your behavior so you're beyond reproach. You figure you will get away with what you're doing; you've covered it with those strong positions, so nobody thinks of you as gay."

Farley, who has studied heroes, says such "untidy" lives don't necessarily undo a leader's popularity. Look at Clinton, or at the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was said to have "wrestled in his own soul" over infidelity, Farley says.

But these days, covering up is so old-school, he says."It's simply becoming so much more acceptable to state your sexual orientation," says Farley. In the 21st-century, "people are more upset about covering up something, living a lie, than being gay," he says. "Saying one thing and doing another — that's one of the things Americans don't like."

In the long run, says David Domke, who studies political communications at the UW, the Curtis scandal hurts not only Republicans, but politicians of every stripe.

"I think the public is going to eventually say, 'We don't trust politicians — we're going to stop listening to you,' " he says. "Most people are saying, 'Either deal with this in your private life or get out of office, because we've got more important issues to deal with.' "

I agree that she is in line with the Harleys thoughts on the state of the marriage pre-affair



Maybe, for me, it is Dr. Laura's approach that makes me bristly. I've read her and listened to her enough, and agree with much of what she iterates regarding marriage and caring for your husband. I didn't TOSS out my husband, though I made mistakes, and would have liked to repair them BEFORE it led to an affair (or multiple affairs, in my case). The way in which she expresses her viewpoint may be at the root of how I perceive her. It sounds like she's BLAMING the wife for the state of the marriage, as if her husband has nothing to contribute, except being there.

I too have a problem with this quote.

Ugh, having had a D-Day a week ago Saturday I feel for his wife and family. It was almost too much to watch/listen to on the news, especially with CNN going on and on about it.

Quote:
“You’re saying the women should feel guilty that they somehow drove the man to cheat?” asked TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira.

“The cheating was his decision to repair what’s damaged and to feed himself where he’s starving,” Schlessinger replied. “But, yes, I hold women responsible for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.”



Maybe, for me, it is Dr. Laura's approach that makes me bristly.
****************************************
DR. Laura's approach leaves me feeling bristly too.
I believe that if we can get to the nitty gritty, Dr.Laura, Dr.Harley and most of us agree.......but, I do have issues w/ the way Dr. L approaches the subject.....I often think she makes men out to sound like a bunch of stupid ogres in desperate need of constant ego stroking.....often thru sex.
I also interpret her as trying to empower women to manipulate these stupid men to get their needs met.........now, when all is said and done, it's not that different than MB plan... minus radical honesty. I think Dr.Harley presents his opinion with more integrity.

Schlessinger, by emphasizing the BS's potential mistakes while making token statements about individual responsibility, really does deserve the criticism she attracts, though obviously knee-jerk reactions from the likes of Viera are typical lightweight mainstream media jibber-jabber. I doubt she'd have had the same reaction if the perpetrator was a female.

This whole courtroom's out of order!

I LIKE DR. LAURA..I think she's trying to HELP women to WAKE UP and LISTEN..

Of course, MEN need to be held responsible..but have you looked around when you go shopping?

There's lots of WIVES that EVIDENTLY aren't CARING for THEMSELVES, becoming JUST MOMMIES, putting their marriages in JEOPARDY.

I get ticked off by HUSBANDS..with their wives..actually STARING at me in my FABULOCITY...like I'm from HOLLYWOOD or something..YUCK..and I just simply got up and dressed rather than wearing my SWEATS in public...

I wanna say.."WOMAN, WAKE UP or you MAY end up like I did"..maybe that's where Dr. Laura is coming from...

I get on my soapbox lots of times..when women tell me they don't cook or don't pay attention to their husbands...

I think the part Dr. Laura leaves out is that it is HIS responsibility to tell his wife if he is "starving".and to communicate with her..rather than resorting to cheating...She does say it is his decision to cheat..so I agree with that part. I think we all agree that both spouses are equally responsible for the state of the marriage..but Dr. Laura's quote doesn't really emphasize that..Personally, I don't like to characterize men as being helpless creatures who have only one option (to cheat) if needs aren't being met...but unfortunately lots WS's justify their cheating that way.

And as Dr. Harley states in his video, we have to FACE the REALITY that INFIDELITY is RAMPANT in this society and so many folks want to live in DENIAL of it.

This is a pet peeve of mine because so many women in my community began looking at me with PITY, as if I should be ASHAMED, my H a well-known politician and businessman, doing this to me..folks thinking we were the PERFECT COUPLE.

Many of their HUSBANDS probably did the same thing or worse and they try to hold themselves up as HOLIER THAN THOU...

Today WE are HAPPIER than ever before and many of them SEEM unhappy..

I PRIDE MYSELF on working on making the NECESSARY CHANGES to make myself the BEST WIFE EVER and I ADMIRE my H's remarkable ability to rise above this and RECLAIM his life, honor and respectability again...he's been looking at the newscasts with tears in his eyes...

Sorry about the rant...

Ah, but you see, Mimi, in general, I never let myself GO after I got married and after having my son. If anything, I worked harder, because I was aging and NEEDED to work out to stay in shape. I also tried to look nice, and BE nice and cook and clean.

My weight gain occurred after Dday#1; a very stressful time. MY problem was doing TOO MUCH; not asking for my husband to open the pickle jar, so he feels manly, or helping our with the daily care of our son, or doing the dishes or a myriad of other things that he could have been asked to do. I believe he felt like I didn't need him, or didn't value him.

In this particular case though, with Spitzer, he solicited a prostitute. This is a well thought out infidelity. It's not a hundred little choices that lead him to a grave mistake. NOPE. He wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol (so far as we know), and it wasn't a typical one night stand. THis was a calculated move by this man. I don't know WHAT his wife could have done to fend THAT off.

In this situation, I just thought Dr. Laura may have overstepped.

I don't think anybody disagrees with Dr. Laura Schlessinger's assessment that we, as wives, need to care for our hubands in ways that make him feel good. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that he statment, while maybe well-intentioned, was not necessarily appropriate in regards to this sitch.

For me, it's all in the delivery, and Dr. Laura could stand to learn a bit more tact. You don't have to be brutal to get your point across. I don't think I've ever heard Dr. Harley speak in the same manner. He's very even keeled in his delivery. It never sounds like he's blaming anybody, just putting responsiblity with each party, where it lies.
Dr. Harley addresses BOTH sides of the marriage. Dr. Laura was being SPECIFIC to WIVES.

I'm certainly not taking up for the Governor, SL.

I'm just trying to make a General Point.

Unlike you, I DID LET MYSELF GO..so good for you..and it's not just looks..it's NOT making your HUSBAND #1 in your life...

My H started his affair by using the OW like a prostitute..probably got off cheap by buying her a bottle of liquor..what she liked..and taking her to a nice hotel..a young girl from the ghetto..OH, Well..He was HAVING FUN..and got hooked into her...

It was the COWARDLY WAY out for him..he was out having THRILLS...escaping his life..he wasn't planning on divorcing me..or falling for her...

As far as I'm concerned, the OW, in MY situation, began as a CHEAP HO...

What's that movie with Richard Gere and the the HO..I can't think of it right now..It was their FAVORITE... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Pretty Woman

Dr. Laura has a GREAT BOOK about the STUPID THINGS MEN DO to MESS UP THEIR LIVES...my H read it and liked it...

OK...I admit it..I'm a Dr. Laura fan... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yep..that's it PRETTY WOMAN..I ABSOLUTELY HATE, HATE, HATE THAT MOVIE, now... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I think each person reaches a certain type of person with their message. I like a more direct person. I have read some criticisms of the Harley's approach for not being hard enough on the WS. I don't agree...but I understand Sclessinger's approach and respect that type of approach as it reaches some people. I just happen to have a problem with some of her views on this topic.

MEDC,

I see what you are saying. I guess Dr. Laura is just not my cup O tea. I have always disliked how she approaches women, wives. She SEEMS on the attack. I, personally, don't need to be smacked upside the head to hear a message. I don't respond well to it. When I can get past her approach, she has a lot of valuable information to offer.

In the numerous clips the news stations keep running of her, Eliot Spitzer's wife looked young, vibrant, beautiful and very much in love with her husband.

Yesterday she looked old and dead.

This had NOTHING to do with her, and everything to do with his selfishness and entitlement.

Dr. Laura actually shocked the other two psychologists on the stage when she began prattling on about how wives who don't take care of their husbands run the risk of "making" them cheat.

Yeah, we all know about unmet emotional needs, but you've got to be extremely careful about rolling that one out because so many will immediately jump on it as a way to blame the BS and give the WS a righteous excuse.

In the face of this particular situation, Dr. Laura's comment was very cruel and just heaped insult upon injury. It seemed calculated to advertise her "Care and Feeding of Husbands" book as much as anything else. Did she even bother to learn *anything* about the woman she was criticizing so harshly?
Mulan

Mulan, that was part of my point, she picked a terrible time to say the things she did. It did seem cruel to me; it's also in HOW she says things. It's that old saying, it's not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.

That's what jumped out at me too. Oh, and also seeing their three smiling daughters, and what appeared to be his elderly parents, at his inaguration... I can only imagine how they all must feel today <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

This had NOTHING to do with her, and everything to do with his selfishness and entitlement.

Dr. Laura actually shocked the other two psychologists on the stage when she began prattling on about how wives who don't take care of their husbands run the risk of "making" them cheat.

Yeah, we all know about unmet emotional needs, but you've got to be extremely careful about rolling that one out because so many will immediately jump on it as a way to blame the BS and give the WS a righteous excuse.

In the face of this particular situation, Dr. Laura's comment was very cruel and just heaped insult upon injury. It seemed calculated to advertise her "Care and Feeding of Husbands" book as much as anything else. Did she even bother to learn *anything* about the woman she was criticizing so harshly?
**************************************

I perceived it the same way, Mulan.

Spritzers W was not a woman who had let herself go..
HE reeks of entitlement and sleaziness IMO....and Dr.Laura was just shooting her mouth off like every situation is the same....the W isn't making the H feel special enough.
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
The times when I was making my H feel X-tra special were the times that he felt bold enough to engage w/ OW and strippers and hookers. Some people can not get enough of that high.

I LIKE DR. LAURA..I think she's trying to HELP women to WAKE UP and LISTEN..

Of course, MEN need to be held responsible..but have you looked around when you go shopping?

There's lots of WIVES that EVIDENTLY aren't CARING for THEMSELVES, becoming JUST MOMMIES, putting their marriages in JEOPARDY.
***************************************

This is a good example of how different approaches will help different people.
When I go shopping and look around, I never noticed the slovenly types......I noticed the well kept hotties in expensive designer clothes or the perfect "Talbots" moms who appeared to have everything under control and never a hair out of place........so, if it is Dr.Laura's intention to wake up the slovenly mommies.......no wonder she didn't reach me.

Ahh..that would be me..'cept I don't shop at Talbot's..too conservative for me...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Ann Taylor girl, myself. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> My mother has taken me shopping at Talbots, though. [by FORCE! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />]

Agree very much. She reaches MANY women with a much needed wake up call. I realize her style might not appeal to the softer types, though. But thats ok, no one realistically expects to appeal to EVERYONE. That would be unrealistic. What matters is SUBSTANCE.

I also like Dr. Harley's style. Both are extremely effectively in their own individual ways. I guess I like INDIVIDUALISM as long as it is coupled with SUBSTANCE..

STYLE is not as important to me as SUBSTANCE. A person can have a terrible STYLE, and as long as the SUBSTANCE is meaningful, I LIKE THEM. I guess I just don't pay that much attention to STYLE now that I think about it. It surprises me that others do. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Isn't substance the most important thing?

Ah, see, I'm not a softer type, Melody. Not by a long shot. I do like a no nonsense style. I believe she SOUNDS downright condescending at times, and I don't respond well to that. That's just how I take her.

AS for the shopping, Ann Taylor makes some beautful clothes, but a bit pricey for me. I shop at NY&Co often, and gap, and Kohls. Maybe when I'm rolling in the dough, I'll shop at higher priced retail.

I found this to be true in my experiece with my ex-wh...some WS's just choose to live this way.

SL, but how do you respond to the SUBSTANCE of what she says? Can you over look style and focus on the SUBSTANCE of the message?

She reaches MANY women with a much needed wake up call. I realize her style might not appeal to the softer types, though.
******************************
I am not sure how you are defining softer types...
I don't consider it necessarily 'softer' types she doesn't reach.....I never needed a wake up call when it came to meeting my H's needs......particularly SF, AS and admiration...
IF
*I* had taken Dr. L's advice to heart, My H would have OD'd on having his cake and eating it too.

Ah, see, I'm not a softer type, Melody. Not by a long shot. I do like a no nonsense style. I believe she SOUNDS downright condescending at times, and I don't respond well to that. That's just how I take her.
*************************************
I find her condescending and I do not respond well to that either
I do agree that her general message is about meeting ENs...and I know some woman who would benefit from Dr.Laura's approach.


posted by Melody...A person can have a terrible STYLE, and as long as the SUBSTANCE is meaningful, I LIKE THEM. I guess I just don't pay that much attention to STYLE now that I think about it. It surprises me that others do.
********************

That is an interesting point....got me thinking...I do sometimes get bothered by "style" and it is usually when I feel triggered about something from my past..... for me, Dr. L's style triggers memories of being talked down to and feeling disempowered.

nia, I don't think I said that everyone needed a wake up call, I surely never thought it. I do think that she helps many women with a much needed wake up call about how to treat their husbands. I know she did ME. By softer types, I mean the type that respond to STYLE over substance; nice, soft words mean more to them than CONTENT.

I pray NOONE saw that show. If they did, I pray they don't remember it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Melody, I like the substance, too true. It's really just the style of her delivery that gets in my craw; maybe I'm just young and rebellious <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />.

I agree with much of what she has to say about women and their roles as wives, and how we have lost sight of HOW to be good wives (be pretty, be nice, be giving, listen, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera), and what men still like and need from their marriages. I also agree that I was falling short in some areas.

My particular beef in this sitch was her TIMING of delivery of her message. I don't believe she intended to sound as if she were BLAMING Mrs. Spitzer, but I believe that's how many took her comments, as the MSN message boards are full of people, BS and WS's alike, who did not digest what she said very well.

Well, I AM the timid, submissive type, so that probably explains the difference in our tastes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

...........and I am OLD! DAMN OLD! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Dr Laura gets a lot of catcalls because people DON'T LIKE TO BE CALLED TO THE FLOOR. And she hasn't exactly lived her advice.

But then again making mistakes doesn't make one any less observant of selfish behavior.

She can be annoying, but its a selfish world nowadays.

********************************

well, *I* have no idea what you are talking about. LOL

Nia, what I meant by this is that she was further injuring BS's, especially Mrs Spitzer. It really does depend on how the message was brought forth to viewers, but in my opinion, it was inappropriate, and used as a way to sell her book....Selfish.

Lady

Melody, you don't type a DAY over 29...

I love dat gal! **snort** <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dr Laura was the OW years ago - broke up a long standing marriage with children. I think that colors her advice.


I am not a fan.

Her doctorate is in physiology,not psychology. To me, calling herself Dr Laura when giving advice is misleading.