Mel:

Langley goes berserk over the word highlighted. She says men use that word to control women.


I have tested the word on other waywards and they all don't like it much, including my wife. But Langley twists the use of the word to mean that men attempt to control women by controlling their sexuality through using the word. In fact, I used the same word to describe affairs. Langley used me as a horrid example. I should have just thanked her and gone on my way.

Instead, I tried to explain that I found nothing shameful about a woman's sexuality, just some of the ways a woman choose to express her sexuality, aka affairs.

Larry

Larry, she should be ashamed! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> A decent person can and SHOULD feel shame about engaging in cruel, immoral behavior. I not surprised that she objects to that "bad" word since she is in the business of justifying the unjustifiable. Her only refuge lies in bastardizing the English language in the hopes that it will alter reality. FAT CHANCE! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Now here is a point of view I want to use to challenge the thought processes of those on here who think, to use Mel's technique.

Most of those posting valid and interestingly negative comments on WI and Langley's POV are of a certain age, with a certain level of experience. I quite understand that someone like Mel, with an exceptional job of selling soda in East Texas, with her life experience and sharp mind, would see through Langley's stuff in a New York minute (I invented that analogy btw).

What about your 24 year old with a three year old kid, who works as one of Mel's clerks, has a husband who works construction with long hours sometimes, and who expects to be able to drink beer and watch TV at night while his wife, Mel's clerk, does all the housework and child care? There are a TON of marriages out there JUST .... LIKE .... THAT!

Langley is on a mission. She is on media. She posts articles that sound oh so reasonable to websites that collect such. Langley ***IS*** having an impact. So we here just wait like spiders in a web for those who need the help to find us on their own???? Or do some of us fan out to find web sites where people who are just thinking about their moves can be sent to a place where their mindsets can be helped BEFORE they gut themselves and the people they love??????

For a fact, at least four people over on WI said that my posts were helpful in changing their minds about engaging in an affair. Apparently women actually look around for validation BEFORE they jump, sometimes. My wife did. I didn't know. Arghhhh.

I am no hero. Just a guy who said why not see what I could do to help someone else BEFORE they got in real trouble.

So PEP, no, I don't agree with taking down the link. I actually found that site from a post on recovery asking if anyone had read the book.

Larry

Here is an excerpt from one of Langley's articles, with the link to the whole thing.


The link:

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Sexual-Double-Standard&id=90344

Larry

Larry, the reason that I do not post on TOW and other such sewer sites is because I believe if you go in the sewer, you will end up with you-no-what on you. Then I will start stinking and get dragged down into the muck. Those places attract people who are looking for validation for what they were going to do anyway. Those who are truly looking to do the right thing, will find resources elsewhere.

I know my limits, and I know that I could not bear to remain in a place that celebrates and encourages the rape, pillage and destruction of innocent spouses and children for selfish interests. The very thought makes me want to puke. I would rather stay in a place that encourages decency and honor so I can stay strong enough to be able to help others here. Others might be better equipped to help in this regard, but I know that I am not equipped.

Larry, do you know anything about her personal life? She sounds just like a wayward.

I understand your reluctance Mel.

And no, I haven't a clue about her personal life. She is a motivation speaker, I think. I have posted on her site that she sounds like she had an affair and has spent a ton of her intellectual capital trying to justify it. Er, then she found out she could make money selling a book, although I don't think she is making much. She has a sequel coming out the end of the year. I have an advance copy.

You see from the quote I just posted how she words things to be oh so reasonable for that unhappy 24 year old clerk.

Larry

It's true Langley does not specify a remedy to the problem, but she's not trying to. She's just trying to define it and explain it. I actually found some of what she wrote to be useful in moving ME in the right direction, which I had no intention of doing until reading her stuff.

Some of you think what she writes is depressing because she makes it sounds like affairs are inevitable. But it's not that AFFAIRS are inevitable - it's that BEING TEMPTED is inevitable EVEN IF you are a woman. Men expect to be tempted, I think, but women are often told When you find "the one" or "Mr. Right" or your "soulmate" you won't want anyone else. My mom (using the phrase "the one") said that exact same thing to me.

So what's wrong with that? Well what's wrong with that is if you think being with "the one" means never wanting anyone else, what happens the first time you get a crush on someone else? You start thinking either you married the wrong person or you are some sort of freak of nature who never should have gotten married in the first place. Most women tend to think the first, which is why they try to leave their husbands. My thinking was more along the latter, which is why I dreamed of having an open marriage. The fact that I wanted to cheat was proof that I was different from other women and in some way so naturally defective that I couldn't be monogamous. After all, women are "naturally" monogamous, right? (Wrong!)

And sometimes shame can be counterproductive. In my case it did operate in a very counterproductive fashion because my shame and guilt were directed at having these thoughts in the first place. And eventually I thought, well if I'm going to feel guilty anyway...

And then after the first time...well I was already a cheater - no going back, right? And if I already had one affair, that's already unforgivable so what difference does another one make? I know this is screwed up thinking, but I'm just pointing out that guilt and shame are not always the best ways of keeping people in line.

An aside...according to her stages, I had reached stage 4.

Another way guilt and shame can be counterproductive (although this one does not apply to me) is that it often causes women to confuse infatuation and love because some women feel like they need to convince themselves that they are in love, because to admit even to themselves that they would do something so destructive just for sex/lust/infatuation is unthinkable. So instead of a woman telling herself, okay I messed up - I need to break it off and tell my husband, she thinks instead that she must be in love with the OM and has to leave her husband. And in her fog, she thinks it's okay because it's for love, not lust - but that's just a way to escape the guilt and shame associated with lust.

I think Langley's ideas are good complement to MB because she talks about women seeking affairs for the oxytocin high (falling in love feeling) and MB teaches how to recreate or keep that feeling withIN the marriage. And both Langley and Harley recognize that it's infatuation that is what affairs are built on and not love.

And in MB we learn it's important for spouses to meet each other's emotional needs, and Langley reminds us that SF needs in women change over time, sometimes quite drastically in the early 30s.

I don't really see the two sets of ideas as being mutually exclusive or in competition at all.

She is also trying to rationalize it and goes to great lengths to portray women as victims. I agree that she is not trying remedy the problem at all, which makes her program worthless. A program without solutions is nothing more than hot air. If there is no solution, then she is of no help. I don't see rationalizations of foggy thinking to be a complement to Marriage Builders at all, but a needless distraction.

In AA, we don't need to listen to the drunk, he needs to listen to those who are SOBER. It is the same with waywards. Recovery requires, not a rendition of fogbabble, but a solution on how to straighten up ones life.

The wayward mind does not recover by listening to fogbabble, but by listening to solutions. She already knows how to be fogged out. Sure, it might feel good to talk to relate to others who are just as fogged out, but the blind cannot lead the blind out of the forest. But Dr. Harley CAN.

The thing that I find most offensive about MZ. Langley is her utter disrespect for women. She portrays them as hapless, gullible morons who are easily manipulated and more than ready to drop their panties for a little sweet talk. I have a much higher regard for - MOST - women, personally.

Actually, it was your CHOICES that were counterproductive, not guilt and shame. Guilt and shame were simply alerts from your conscience that something was WRONG. They are your FRIENDS.

Guilt and shame are good things in that their function is to warn us about violations against our conscience. Violations against our conscience bring terrible consequences, such as depression, unhappiness, loss of self respect, self loathing, loss of self esteem, grief, humiliation, etc.

You ignore guilt and shame signals at great personal cost. Guilt and shame are really LIFE SAVERS that can lead you to personal happiness if used correctly. They are not the enemy, but the personal happiness WARNING SYSTEM.

If guilt and shame are such great life savers then why is it that 1) I felt more guilt BEFORE I did anything wrong than after I did. I felt more guilt about THINKING about doing wrong, than actually about doing wrong.

2) I felt guilty when my mom tried to commit suicide. That wasn't even my fault, but it's a common reaction. Rape victims also feel guilt. There is also survivor's guilt, whereby the lone survivor in an accident feels guilty for having survived while others did not.

Plus, I think that guilt and shame are very self-absorbed emotions. They cause you to focus on YOU and what a bad person you are, but don't lead you to actually DO anything about it. You just beat yourself up.

I find remorse to be more helpful. With remorse, you are outwardly focused on the harm done to others, how to undo it when possible and how to keep yourself from making the same mistakes in the future. I think that makes a lot more sense than wasting time trying to figure out if what I've done makes me one step below, or one step above, pond scum.

BTW, your previous response didn't sound like you read my post at all. I never said Langley had a "program." Langley never even said she had a program. In fact, I said just the opposite - that she doesn't talk about solutions. She's just defining the problem. And that is because she is not a psychologist or a marriage counselor, she's a journalist. She's just reporting what she's learned from all her research and leaving it up to marriage counselors to find solutions.

And isn't part of MB trying to figure out why you did what you did so you can protect your marital boundaries in the future? So then isn't trying to understand why affairs happen part of the process? Trying to understand something is not the same as excusing it.

MEDC, I explained this earlier on this thread. Please browse through my previous posts.

Can you imagine what life would be like if all of us were just in our marriages as the "best we found so far" but constantly receptive to a seemingly better gig ?

If thats how Langley lives, she is welcome to it.

It is actually phenylethylalamine that is the infatuation high, oxytocin actually is the real love high. But PEA is stronger and more brain addling. Oxytocin gets released during nursing.

Larry

Just put a gun to my head.

And, for the record, drug high or no drug high, an A is an A. This PEA may be real but it is also beginning to sound like the woman who sued McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself. It seems that we will come up with any excuse to avoid taking responsibility for our own actions.

While it is true that Langley just "explains" the problem and to slight credit, does post web site references where someone can go find advice of a sort on how to fix it, she has problems with;

1. She does not reference marriage builders, the number one site for infidelity on the net. And as I said, I dunno if she has even read here.

2. From her tone and information, some could be led to believe that affairs are ok because they are part of a "natural" cycle of emotions.

3. She argues for a radical social culture as I mentioned before, pointing out that affairs are epidemic, so therefore society should make overt adjustments accordingly.

Just for grins, she does validate Harley's oft mentioned point that we are ALL vulnerable to our weaknesses.

Oh, and to add: Langley seems like a reporter with an agenda, right?

Larry

And MEL or PeP or AP or whoever. . .

How about the hyhpothetical 24 year old clerk? Langley is influencing in a certain way. Countering her influence with slogans in the face of articles like I posted are not going to help mitigate affairs.

What about the article. Help me understand her points from a thinking woman's perspective. I have this inability to think like a woman <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Larry

PIO

It is like meth or crack. And it is real. Harley talks about it without mentioning the chemical. And it eventually drops off, leaving the affair busted up as has often been stated; affairs don't usually last.

Ever been infatuated?

Larry

I'm not saying it isn't real. I used to live in the UK many many years ago. At that time in the USA, alcoholism was a disease. In the UK it was a personal choice. It just seems to me that we are going to great lengths to make everything not our fault. It was the chemical effect on my brain that did it. I didn't do it. I'm a victim. I'm beginning to read more and more of your posts that way. You jump in to so many threads with this hit-and-run chemical dependency claim effectively taking all responsibility away from the WS. I'm curious what drives this new mission of yours.

But my WW did not "fall in love" in an instant. It took time. Before this chemical ever took hold, she crossed boundaries. So your chemical may make it hard to quit an A but I think the idea that it starts affairs is total crap.