I *do* remember Flip Wilson and his oft repeated excuse for every kinda sort maybe offbeat thing he did. I wonder how many others remember

Ahemmmm...I would be of the others that remember it.

My Dad loved that show...cracked him up.

<The Devil made me do it>

committed

Just because you chose to ignore the signal does not mean the signal is BAD, it means the receptor is bad. Look at where ignoring those signals has got you...[CLUE BAT!] You became a serial cheater! You are like those hurricane victims in New Orlaens who shot at their rescuers. Doesn't mean the rescue was bad, just that there was something wrong with the rescuee.


Did you not read my response?
And no, she does not "define the problem," she categorizes FOGBABBLE. That is a great leap from "defining the problem." She does not even understand the problem, much less the dynamics of adultery because her mind is lost in outdated silly social stereotypes from the 60's.

She doesn't even bother to tell people WHERE to get help. Any assh0le can write about the fogbabble of wayward wives; we have numerous threads here that do that very thing just for a laugh. We know all about it. But so what? What good is it without a SOLUTION?

An argument which is presented as pseudo-science can usually be challenged on the rigour of its method.

For example, I assume Langley is talking about the 40% of married woman who cheat, as statistics claim. This means that there is a 60% majority population who don't cheat.

Does she investigae:

- whether these women were not subject to the same emotional cycle?

- whether these women experienced temptation?

- assuming temptation, how these women interpreted and dealt with it?

- what the medium/long-term consequences for these women? Were they happier or sadder than the 40%?

Did she have a means of measuring satisfaction such that she could reliably compare, or was all evidence subjective and anecdotal?

I agree that a theorem which contends that all women are biologically programmed to respond to their emotions in this way is flawed. However, so many women do cheat, it's useful to see into the flawed thinking that got them there, not to mention the flawed self-worth that allows them to think that where they've got to is a place worth being.

Otherwise, how do we help posters like Aphaeresis, who lack a good model for the achievement of real happiness?

TA

Langley does not define this as flawed thinking, though. And therein lies the rub. Never does she even state that it is flawed. Rather, she seems to VALIDATE it and never shows why it is wrong or the disasterous end result. I think it has the effect of validating foggy thinking and others who have been on that forum confirm this. That is my main concern with Langley.

Harley's program DOES help anyone who WANTS IT, to achieve marital happiness, [with both parties assent] but I don't believe anything could make someone want it against their will. He DOES have a plan to help posters like Aph.

No Larry, it is nothing like meth or crack. For you to say so shows that you have no idea what those drugs are actually like.

Oops, point well taken. It was never my intention to find excuses, only to point out something factual so it could be dealt with.

Ever read the 12 step into adultery thing? This is how the mind state is acquired in many cases. At ever level, a choice is made.

Many, many posts are made referring to the WS as an addict and that is valid. Ok, to what are they addicted? Langley says brain chemicals, er, then stops. It is like it is ok to be hooked on periodic injections of the substance from her POV, or so it seems.

The real point of the addiction is that one day PEA stops - see Al Turtle's stuff on "romantic love." They look up and feel nothing for the OP. My posts about PEA are to 1) identify the drug and 2) through identification, validate that it will one day, just stop, quit, not be there, and the affairee is left with having gutted everyone around them and now is gutted themselves.

Larry

TA

You are seriously on the right track there. Thank you.

Larry

Ok MEDC, I bow to your opportunity for knowing a heckofa lot more about drug addiction than I do. Some pundits in the shrink business say that PEA is like meth. I have dealt with a couple of meth heads. I agree somewhat (after thinking about it a bit) that PEA addiction is similar to meth, but maybe not in that a meth head has to sleep for a ton of hours when they come down.

Dealing the affair addiction as a drug made it easier for me to handle it and help my wife. If I had thought of it as true love, I would now be divorced.

So MEDC, what is your take on the strength and duration of affair addiction? You are a level headed person, give me your take, please. And before you start, I agree it is about choices, just like any other drug. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Larry

Larry wrote: "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."

She does list both Marriage Builders and the website in the references section, at the top.

I am curious with all this discussion, who all has read both books?

I have read both, and I know Larry has, any others?

I am not trying to defend Langley, she has a lot to learn yet. She does, however, make some astute observations in her books, whether one agrees with the context or not.

It seems to me that there is a lot of assumption being made about the books here.

For what it is worth, at the end of the second book, the wayward wife is encouraged to come clean with her husband. That seems alike a good first step toward a potential recovery in any case.

If you decide you want to read the books, I recommend that you read book 2, first. I think that will better prepare the reader to see the start of Langley's own personal growth in the first book.

I would NOT recommend a freshly betrayed male spouse read the books at all, unless they have a long term entitled princess on their hands, in which case the information could prove valuable.

My opinion.

God bless,
Gimble

The biggest problem that I have about Langley is that she is full of schit.

She does a pretty good job of explaining the emotional states that a woman could have when she decides to adulterate her M.

But, she doesn’t offer ANY moral reinforcement. She sounds like a laboratory technician describing a group of sexually active monkeys.

She says on one hand that woman are plenty sexually expressive and that every guy thinks that there are about a dozen ho-bags in the world that service all the men that surveys say have all of this active sex, while the women report that they have far less sex. Her point being here that all women are sexually active and live a charade of goody two shoes to trick men into thinking that they are special; one scromp at a time.

Then on the other hand she says that women oppress themselves and their own sexuality? WTF? Pick ONE.

For EVERY SINGLE adulterer, there is a reciprocating individual of the opposite sex. The last time I checked all the guys that were hyper sexually active certainly had to have partners.

To me Langley talks about the whole adultery subject as just another kind of human behavior. And that’s fine if that’s what you believe. But I believe that it is ADULTERY and there is a big difference.

Adultery invokes moral and religious beliefs. Infidelity is more abstract.

Whooping cranes have ONE MATE for life. Killer whales have ONE MATE for life. I could rattle off a list of other ANIMALS that have ONE MATE for life. Oh, you say you want to konw? Ok, so do beavers, otters, wolves, foxes, and bats.

Now what in the hel! is the problem when you can have animals put everything that they are into their family and mate and an exalted human being can’t do it?

Unfortunately, she is right about one thing IMO.

With the woman’s rights movement and a longing of women to be just like men in society they have become more like men than they may have wanted.

Throughout history women have been the steering wheel for the social structures of civilization.

In nearly every other species on this planet women are the ones that pick the one the allow to be their mate.

Some patterns are hard to break.

Essentially I feel she has written the equivalent of this article for women. ---> Life Science link.

I wonder how Mrs. Langley will feel when they start selling the male birth control pill.

Gimble, do you think that we would learn anything from her that we haven't already learned from Marriage Builders? To be quite frank, I haven't seen anything so far that leads me to think she knows one tenth as much as him so I don't see what is to be gained from getting her book.

She knows all about fogbabble, but so does about every poster on this board. Others have stated that she has no solutions at all, so that does not motivate me to buy her book. Her article about the various states of mind also seem to portray women as numnuts and men as "oppressors," which is an automatic turn off to me. Sounds like 60's garbage to me.

piojitos wrote:
"But my WW did not "fall in love" in an instant. It took time. Before this chemical ever took hold, she crossed boundaries."

This is a very important observation! We make conscious decisions along the way that get us to the addictive stage. It (sin) creeps up on us slowly sometimes, but we give it room by making those bad decisions until we are in over our heads.

I believe sin starts in our minds, then we slowly begin to act out on it. That's why we (everyone, not just waywards) have to protect our thought lives, and be very aware of the decisions we are making, even the seemingly smallest ones.

God bless,
Rose

Langley DOES note that the next guy is gonna go the same route as the current one. Yet she offers no solutions and she does not invalidate, which can be seen as the same thing as validation. Mix this with her radical social evolution theory and there you go Mel.

Lemme give you a snapshot of this.

She says that she sees the evolution of social marriage conduct as moving toward parenting as a joint venture, with both parents living apart but near enough together to do the parent thing. Each parent would then be free to engage in whatever sexual conduct that floats their boat (paraphrasing her). She says just look at the percentage of affairs to see where society is going.

Ok, so I asked, where is the money to allow two households to operate like that? I think I actually said "Where's the beef, the money, have you thought about it?"

Her answer was, "Yes, I have thought about it." Then she changed the subject.

APH:

Yes, she wears the cloak of a reporter. Pundits from the right and left will fill your ear with all the ways a "Reporter" can spin something. And Langley clearly spins her face off.

Larry

For what it’s worth dopamine could be considered a drug just like any other.

Are we going to start excusing heroin addicts for homelessness, alcoholics for drunk driving, or crack addicts for home invasions because they have a drug addiction?

HORSE pucky.

When all that starts to happen I’m barricading the back forty and moving into my bomb shelter because things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

When I need a shot of dopamine I either have sex with my W or hit the treadmill.

You get dopamine from exercise too.

Disclaimer: I’m not comparing sex with my W to exercise on a treadmill.

MEL wrote: "Gimble, do you think that we would learn anything from her that we haven't already learned from Marriage Builders? To be quite frank, I haven't seen anything so far that leads me to think she knows one tenth as much as him so I don't see what is to be gained from getting her book."

I make no excuses for her motivations, lack of factual information or overall morality.

However, some men and some women, if they are able to objectively read the material, can find some information of value.

I would prefer that a different author with qualification present some of the material she presents (she makes reference to some decent books). The reason is that I have seen, worked with, and talked to many men that have no understanding of a woman's sexuality. Those same men tend (this is a generalization) to place women on a pedestal of sorts, and are rendered blind to what is really going on with their mate. If a different author, perhaps Dr. Harley, could address the same information from an educated point of view. I think it would have value.

So, yes, I view the books as having some merit, but not for the casual reader.

God bless,
Gimble

She is morally and intellectually retarded. This is nothing more than open "marriage." She believes that men are disposable commodities and women are nothing more than little wh0res. And of course, the best interest of the children are completely nil to her.

This kind of thinking usually only comes from a very wayward mindset.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA...I was gonna ask about your speed and incline level!!! Plank, my friend, you are HILARIOUS!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

Ok Dangit!!!!!!

Since nobody else will take on that excerpt I posted, I will.

As many of you know, my major in college was cultural psychology which got killed off in the academic wars by the sociology departments. I am interested in society as a whole and how society deal with individuals and how individuals deal with society.

Langley makes the point that society is evolving. I disagree with her the direction that society is going.

Here is what I think.

In days past, males enjoyed a certain level of sexual freedom that women did not have. Yea, the old 50's and 60's thing - and actually way past then. There were then and there are now, men who pursued married women as part of the "Game."

Bagging a married woman was a serious ego hit. It still is for some guys.

Now along comes the sexual revolution, fueled by two things, the entry of most women into the work force and the pill. Family pressures from society to the end of endless kid activities, long hours at work, internet activities, supporting consumption in the form of ever larger houses, bigger cars, more things, coupled with the migration of families and the corresponding loss of the extended family network of uncles, grandparents and other relatives, all work to put more pressure on the basic family unit.

Women are not longer in economic servitude.

And women are committing adultery in every increasing numbers. It is easy to get married and almost as easy to get a divorce. From Harlequin romances (and the like) to magazines like Cosmo and the circle of friendships that validate affairs, women are encouraged to dream and seek and fall in the trap of infidelity.

Erk, wait a minute. There is something else going on.

Some pundits are starting to notice that MALES are cheating less and less, with casual sex adultery on the decline. Now why is this, you ask? Simple really. Just about every male I know has either experienced his wife cheating or has some other male within his circle of friends whose wife is or has cheated.

Males are beginning to notice that adultery hurts, that the game has consequences that devastate some other male and yep, it could happen to him. Ouch.

Males already know that divorce screws them to the wall and that divorce hurts children. No, not every part of every sub culture of society, but enough males are starting to get it to form a trend in my opinion. Again, in my opinion, males are trending to insist on absolute fidelity in marriage and they are going to pay for it as they have never paid for it before, with a monogamous standard of their own instead of economically. See, males not longer have the economic power they used to have. Yea, some still do, but most don't.

So to get fidelity, they gotta pay for it. Money no longer has the value it used to have for this purpose. So men are left with the only thing of value they can offer, which is to keep their own fly zipped and condem those males they know who still want to play the game.

That's my theory and I am sticking to it. Your mileage may vary.

Larry

Plank:


Another (major) crack in Langley's logic.

Larry

Gimble:


Then she has changed. I read her first book a year ago and have had emails back and forth about MB. As of the finish of the second book, I don't know that she ever read here. She told me she was going to do it at some point in time and that was AFTER the first book. Maybe she has by now.

Most of my problems with Langley's stuff is where she thinks society is going and the lack of help in the adultery "Explanations" she provides.

Larry