Today is Marriage Fidelity Day. Ironically one of the first things I read this morning in my google news alert emails was some decidedly anti-safe marriage advice from a syndicated columnist. Here is what I wrote about my experience with her column and our subsequent exchange.

Should you, ahhhhhhhh......, feel the need to send a personal comment to the columnist her email address is AdviceAmy@aol.com. I think in honor of MFD doing so would mesh quite will with Just J's letter writing campaign. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

C

~~~~
Syndicated Advice Columnist Gives Really Bad Advice
© Penny R. Tupy 2004

In a recent column http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/9668197.htm Amy Alkan, self proclaimed “Advice Goddess” discouraged a married woman from being honest with her husband about a passionate kiss with a coworker. A coworker whom the woman described as a “hottie” and for whom she’d been feeling some attraction.

Amy’s advice was to say nothing and go on as if nothing had happened. “Share only lottery winnings and news of any behavior your husband needs to know about to protect himself: No, not ‘I was bored, but too lazy to jazz up our sex life, so I chewed face and ran"; just stuff like, "I led the guy on, dumped him hard, and now he's on his way to Home Depot to buy an ax.’ “


What Amy is missing in this equation is that an attraction to a person outside the marriage – and certainly one that involves a passionate kiss – IS something the husband needs to know in order to protect the marriage. Infidelity affects sixty to eighty percent of marriages in the US with the resulting destruction and fallout impacting marriage, family, and society.


Here is the email I sent to Amy in response to her article:

Amy -
Although I agree with your point of view that the woman who kissed her "hottie" coworker was attempting to opt out of taking responsibility for her own part of the drama, I disagree with the advice to withhold the information from her husband.

I am a professional marriage coach, specializing in infidelity. I work day in and day out with couples whose lives and families are shattered by outside relationships. One of the most destructive habits in marriage is that of secrecy, privacy, or bluntly - dishonesty, particularly regarding attractions and interactions with other people.

The woman in your column did the right thing by getting herself out of the situation and ending contact with the hottie coworker. Better, would have been to tell her hubby up front as soon as she became attracted to the guy so that she and hubby could have proactively taken steps to protect their marriage.

Infidelity affects at least 60 and as many as 80 percent of marriages in the US. It's the number one presenting cause of couples seeking professional help and the underlying cause in many other cases. And yet, the chance of an affair relationship turning into a fulfilling long term relationship is less than 1 percent. In the end, everyone in the triangle (and their families) gets hurt.

Your reader is lucky in realizing the danger before it was too late. Those who follow the advice of not telling their spouse leave a gaping hole of risk to their marriage. I suspect you meant well and wanted to protect her hubby from hearing something very painful. Most would do the same. The problem is that without transparent honesty in marriage the danger of even more destructive situations and the resulting pain is much greater.

The Advice Goddess’ response? (Although I believe the reader gets a much fairer picture when reading the actual words of the response, this is edited and paraphrased per Amy's "request," read: nasty threats and vile name calling.)


Amy suggests, in her reply, that a rule of honesty in marriage is "simplistic" and that dishonesty on occassion is "wiser."

She also muses that it might be the marriage that is out of line, that a life long commitment is unrealistic and quotes historian Lawrence Stone "divorce is a functional substitute for death."

Unlike those of us working in the trenches to heal and support marriage and family she believes that it makes a lot of sense when relationships end, and sees no tragedy in those breakups.

And of course, she ends with saying that she thinks I'm wrong.


Huh. So I visited Amy’s site to see what her credentials are for giving out marital advice. Seems that although she claims her columns and advice are based on “science, psychology, evolutionary psychology, and ethics,” no training, credentials, or study of those topics are listed. Certainly nothing along the lines of the Dalai Lama’s statement about ethics and the need to avoid harming others, no apparent understanding of the biochemistry of love and attraction, and obviously no study of marriage and infidelity. And the cost of divorce both personally and to society as a whole? Well you can read for yourself, she thinks it makes a lot of sense when relationships end. Tell that to the kids whose childhood just came to a screeching halt.

In fact, according to Amy’s site, her credentials for giving advice on the most important aspects of people’s lives is having stood on a street corner in Soho giving out free advice.

My advice to Amy? Either get educated on the topics you comment on or stick to fashion advice.

<small>[ September 20, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: cerri ]</small>

Hmmm, why do I get the impression and feeling that the writer of that "advice" column herself ran off with an OM?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps it's marriage itself that doesn't make sense -- promising to be with somebody forever. Relationships don't last that long. As historian Lawrence Stone wrote: Perhaps "divorce is a functional substitute for death."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ahhhh...Cerri....secular humanistic "reasoning" at it's "best." Without God and a commitment to "eternity", all there IS is the "here and now" and "what is in MY best interest." For many of us, marriage IS a "forever" commitment, a voluntary "surrendering" of our "right" to play with whomever, and whenever, we "want to."

Amy's quote of Lawrence Stone (as if he is THE definitive voice about marriage) is a blatant attack on marriage as a covenant commitment that was instituted and blessed by God. Quite simply, it is obvious (yes I'm being a bit "judgmental" here) that Amy is NOT a believer.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think it's tragic when relationships end. I think it makes a lot of sense. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This should be enough to let anyone conclude that what Amy thinks is irrelevant and self-serving. HER opinion is the key. "Right and wrong" do not count. There are NO Standards other than what she "feels." Sounds so much like typical Wayward Spouse justification and rationalization that her statements and "advice" should be given about as much weight as most babble that comes from someone "lost in the fog" of an affair.

Sadly, there are many many people who would believe her lies and take it as "sound advice." But those will most likely be the "fogbound" anyway...and they don't usually listen to sound, empirical, and/or "faith based," advice anyway.

EWWWWWW!

It's positions like these that tear at the very fabric of our marriages and families.I get the sense of entitlement too and that Amy may just be a bit biased in her opinions about fidelity and marriage.

Ok,I have to go read this artcle for myself.

Thanks cerri.

O

I definitely recommend letting the advice goddess know how you feel about this particular bit of advice. I really hope that she learns more about marriage and the things she's saying. I also wonder if the advice goddess hasn't yet had some of the really painful life experiences that lead to an understanding of the things she's talking about at a whole new level.

Well, it was an interesting weekend .... apparently the Advice Goddess has nothing better to do with her Friday nights and Saturday mornings than to send me ranting, name calling, threatening emails. I'd quote them here, but a brief perusal of copyright law says that she (and all of us) has the right to determine how her written words are used. Her privacy statement, included on the three or four subsequent emails reads something like this: (the idea is the same, the words are not)

She states that the contents of the email are privelaged. That I cannot forward, broadcast, publish or share with any other human being in any media. If I do so, I agree to pay her $4995 within 10 days. She also suggests that I not tempt her to sue my apparently petty and mean spirited [censored] since her attorney has a kid that goes to a pricey school and is in need of the legal fees.

It's amusing and I'm a bit taken aback that a woman who is known for her crude, brash, name calling columns gets this violently angry over a post to my blog. Her post over the weekend called one of Harvard's Cornel West a vulgar, pretentious, snob. I'm not saying I disagree with her beef with West, but name calling? Hmmmm....

She also mentions, in the same blog post that her favorite reader letters begin with Dear Dumb *****. Go figure.....

C

Forever hers - Although I respect and admire your dedictation to your faith, to imply that one must be a believer to have good ethics and values rules out a whole lot of really good people. I am not a Christian (I'm a Pagan Priestess), I don't believe in either heaven or hell, and I don't make my decisions based on a religious moral code.

I'm perfectly fine with the here and now (although I certainly believe in a higher power and an afterlife) - but I also adamantly believe that if we make decisions for the here and now we need to do so in a way that respects and honors all of creation. If it cases harm to you, someone else, or the planet at large it is unethical. I don't care if you think this is it and when you die it's over - you still have an ethical obligation to behave in a way that respects the rest of the planet.

I don't give faith based advice. I respect those who do, and I'm very glad for their faith members that there are those who do - but don't rule out the good people with strong ethics and integrity who come from other walks of life.

C

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2Tim.4:3-5 NIV)

Cerri, the words and actions of someone like Ann are what is expected of someone controlled by the "flesh." She is NOT interested in truth. She is only interested in her position, her "rights," and MONEY. It matters not what she says or who she might hurt with her writing or her advice. It only matters that she gets PAID for whatever drivel she may spout. And that, by secular humanistic thought, is her right and noone can "question" her stance.

As for the "priveleged" status of her emails, I am no attorney. But I'd think that conversations, written or verbal, between two people CAN be "exposed" by either of them unless there is a joint understanding of confidentiality as in a "confession to priest" or as in "attorney-client privelege." It doesn't sound like her "threat" or unilateral assumption of "privelege" meets those criteria.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">to imply that one must be a believer to have good ethics and values rules out a whole lot of really good people. I am not a Christian (I'm a Pagan Priestess), I don't believe in either heaven or hell, and I don't make my decisions based on a religious moral code.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Cerri - nowhere did I "imply" or "state" that "one must be a believer to have good ethics and values." There ARE a lot of people who do not believe in God, are not "Christians," etc., who do choose to live as ethically and morally "good" of a life as they can. They essentially embrace the "Christian philosophy" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I have no problem with that, but I will stand on the reality that "secular humanism" leaves the issue of "Standards" up to the individual and removes the "right" for anyone to judge anyone else's actions as being "wrong." Within that "camp" you can find the extremes of "moral and ethical living" and "debased and depraved living" and everything inbetween. The reason is simple, no uniform Standards with which to evaluate "behavior."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm perfectly fine with the here and now (although I certainly believe in a higher power and an afterlife) - but I also adamantly believe that if we make decisions for the here and now we need to do so in a way that respects and honors all of creation. If it cases harm to you, someone else, or the planet at large it is unethical. I don't care if you think this is it and when you die it's over - you still have an ethical obligation to behave in a way that respects the rest of the planet.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No argument from me here. I happen to believe that the Creator has given all of us the "natural" understanding of "good and evil" to convict us of our sin when we choose poorly. I also believe that we are constantly battling a "fallen, sinful flesh." So the issue goes beyond merely living or not living a moral life. It goes to WHY we are here and WHO is "Sovereign Lord" in our lives. It's the age old questions of "is there a god," and "if so, who is this god," and "Is Christ the only way to be saved and reconciled to God?" That is a religious question, not a moral or ethical or any "works" based question.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't give faith based advice. I respect those who do, and I'm very glad for their faith members that there are those who do - but don't rule out the good people with strong ethics and integrity who come from other walks of life. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't "rule out" others. Suffice it to say that anyone advocating "morality and ethics" of a "higher plane" is preferable to negative and "self-serving" advice. The problem continues to be "what ethics and what morality?" Those issues change with society. "Right and Wrong" are not necessarily synonomous with "rule of the majority."

So I highly commend anyone seeking to follow God's commands whether they believe in God or not. I simply state that God's commands are firm and unchanging amidst a sea of changing mores, morals, and ethics based upon societal "acceptability."

Upon the rational that the "individual" has the sole and exclusive right of determing their own moral, ethics, standards, and acceptable behavior stands the crux of what Ann is claiming in stating that she "disagrees" with you. She rejects your standards and accepts her own.

That is really why we have such things as Laws anyway. Take something as simplistic as Speed Limits on our highways. The "society" has deemed it ethical and moral to abide by those laws, yet we change them from time to time when circumstances on a given roadway change with time. Others choose to ignore all limits and choose what they believe is in their "best interest" without regard to others. In short, there will be consequences for all of our actions and choices. Some will be good consequences and some will be bad consequences.

Perhaps the "best" way to describe it is the idea of "moderation." Most things done in moderation are not "bad" and usually won't harm ourselves or others. But if one chooses to allow themselves to gravitate toward the "extreme" as being acceptable for THEIR LIFE, it often impacts others. Drunkneness for example, can lead to alcholism, drunk driving, abusive behavior, etc.

This in NOT in conflict with Scripture or belief in God. Pick any one of the 10 Commandments, for example, and I'd ask anyone to show where "obedience" to those commands, even if one does not believe in the existance of God, would be a bad or harmful thing to themselves or to others.

They DO form an ethical and moral framework that is unchanging, regardless of whether or not someone believes that they were given by God or dreamt up by some "man." Those who choose to live by those "standards" I would applaud regardless of their faith status. I would, out of concern for eternity, ask them to go further and examine the issue of the existance of God and whether or not Jesus Christ IS who he claims he is. Not because it will lead to a more moral life here on earth (though it will) but because it concerns eternity and their eternal soul.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by cerri:
<strong>
She states that the contents of the email are privelaged. That I cannot forward, broadcast, publish or share with any other human being in any media. If I do so, I agree to pay her $4995 within 10 days. She also suggests that I not tempt her to sue my apparently petty and mean spirited [censored] since her attorney has a kid that goes to a pricey school and is in need of the legal fees.
C </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi Cerri,

As an attorney, I find it highly amusing that anyone would think that the contents of a private email from one person to another would ever be privileged or subject to liquidated damages. This is something that any first year law student would laugh at.

Just think, if her logic was taken through to its conclusion, she could send a death threat to the president, and if he reported it to the Secret Service, she would be entitled to a check from dear old GWB. What an idiot!!

Just an example of the fine scholars in the press these days!! The first amendment protects them, but anyone who disagrees is subject to a lawsuit!

http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

It seems that email is protected by copyright law. Although, from what I read, in order to collect damages one would have had to have registered the contents of the email prior to sending it.

ForeverHers - I think you and I probably have a different definition of ethics and morals. I consider morals to be based on a religious code - and what those morals are will change a bit from religion to religion. Ethics I consider to be outside the realm of individual religion and address humanity and creation at large.

The Dalai Lama in his book "Ethics for the New Millenium" addresses this question at the beginning of the book. If we are to speak to the universal ethics we can choose from among many religious codes, they are very much alike. But doing so immediately sets up partisan walls. Instead he chooses to define ethics in a broader scope. If the desired action (which includes inaction) has the possiblity of causing harm to self or other - including the planet - then it is unethical. Harm is, of course, entirely different than discomfort. There are many many times when it is unethical to avoid causing discomfort.

One of the things I fight against every day is the statement, "It wouldn't be nice to expose the affair. S/he'll be mad at me and that would be wrong." This is a clear example of where avoiding discomfort is harmful. (And one has to wonder, is it the discomfort of the straying spouse that is of such concern or is it really their own discomfort that they avoid?) Allowing an affair or any other addiction to continue without intervention is to aid and abet a harmful behavior. Harmful not only to the person involved in it and the spouse, but to a much larger circle than even we imagine.

This is one place where I wish the pagan community would take a leaf from their christian brothers and sisters. We don't always do a very good job of confronting each other when we make harmful choices. Not in a judgmental or condemning way (and I think that's the fear) but simply as a statement of caring - and then offering support if it's wanted. There's a difference between meddling which we abhor as a group and being in tune with our ethical postion even when it's uncomfortable to do so.

C

I find it interesting that in the very next letter under the subject letter, her advice was:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Feeling the way you do doesn't make you a bad guy. Not having the guts to express your feelings in a timely manner makes you a bad guy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But don't tell your H about an extramarital kiss! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Hey Lucks! Long time no hear... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Yeah, she's a real winner, isn't she. The scary thing is that people read her advice and think she knows what she's talking about. If John can assure me that she has no legal standing I'll post her other emails to me. They're quite... uhhhh..... entertaining.

Amy has a problem with her emails being posted, so I am not going to post her emails. I do not have a problem with my emails being posted, though, so I'm posting them in chronological order.

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

Amy,

I read Penny email to you and your response on her blog today.

http://symc.blog-city.com/

Your response was:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sometimes this works to protect the marriage; sometimes this works to provide for lasting resentment and rage that breaks up the marriage. It's easy to say "always be honest" -- a less simplistic approach is often wiser.

Perhaps it's marriage itself that doesn't make sense -- promising to be with somebody forever. Relationships don't last that long. As historian Lawrence Stone wrote: Perhaps "divorce is a functional substitute for death."

I don't think it's tragic when relationships end. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for writing, but I think you're wrong. Best, -Amy </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When you say that perhaps marriage makes no sense, to whom are you referring? Does it make no sense to society, to our children, to our financial lives, or does it merely seem to not make sense when one only considers the individuals involved within the marriage?

There is overwhelming evidence that children raised with a mother and father together in the same home fare better on most, if not all, measurable parameters. A good source for these statistics is http://www.divorcereform.org/stats.html.

I want you to pay attention particularly to this link: http://www.divorcereform.org/succeed.html

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"When researchers examined data from the late 1980s on 5,232 married adults, they found that 645 subjects reported marital dissatisfaction. When the unhappy spouses were surveyed five years later, those who had remained married were more likely than divorced subjects to state that they were happy. In fact, the most miserable marriages had the most dramatic turnarounds: 78 percent of people who stayed in "very unhappy" marriages said that the marriages were currently happy. " [Kary, T. (2002) Don't Divorce, Be Happy. Psychology Today, v35 i6 p26(1). Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There are also findings that divorced individuals, on average, have shorter lifespans than married individuals. Unmarried men have a shorter lifespan than those who are married. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7289_322/ai_73579617 There is also documentation on higher rates of depression. The documentation is pervasive, and I trust you to do your own research.

Obviously, the future of our society rests upon our children, and I find these statistics particularly moving, and recent studies show that married couples are more financially stable (to the tune of about $100k per year). This was in a Wallstreet-type financial report published around 8/24 of this year. Again, I trust you to do your own research.

In reality, dishonesty does not protect our spouse. If we were so interested in protecting our spouse’s feelings, we would avoid the hurtful behavior in the first place. It is not disclosure of hurtful acts that causes the hurt, it is the act itself. Dishonesty is merely a tool we utilize to control our spouse’s response to our behavior by denying them factual information to allow them to decide how to react on their own. In the end, not only is this self-serving, arrogant, and controlling, it is incredibly disrespectful and demeaning to our spouse to suppose we have the right to determine what information they should and should not have access to. In a final summation, it is dangerous because unexposed cracks are still cracks in the relationship, and you cannot protect against that which you do not know exists.

I realize that the predominant thought in society today is that this behavior is a normal and natural part of our behavior and that we are not instinctually predisposed to monogamy. I submit for you that we are also not instinctually predisposed to defecate in a toilet, but we learn to do so anyway. We are not instinctually predisposed to a nonviolent reaction to a territorial intrusion, either, but it is still not condoned to react violently. No one will argue that these learned behaviors benefit us all, why is marriage so different?

I ask you to do as I do and routinely challenge pervasive thought. As Einstein said, “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.”

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

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

Amy,

Penny has been through a nasty and expensive divorce, that is true. That has been quite a while ago. She now lives with her husband and children in what I would describe as a very happy and stable marriage. I have met all of them – most recently at the SmartMarriages Conference in Dallas, TX. BTW, she was a co-presenter there, along with Peggy Vaughn, author of “The Monogamy Myth” www.dearpeggy.com, on cyber-sex and pornography and the impact on marriage.

The link you send sounds very much like Dr. Willard Harley’s advice on avoiding what he terms Love Busters. http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3400_lovebust.html One of these Love Busters is Dishonesty http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3405_dishonesty.html, and his comments address specifically the situation on which Penny commented. Dr. Harley and his daughter, Dr. Chalmers, have written a book entitled “Surviving an Affair” over infidelity and recovering your marriage. He does have most of this information available for free on his site. One of the Q/A columns he has that specifically addresses the aspect of honesty is: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5060_qa.html.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">“Most unfaithful spouses know that their affair is one of the most heartless acts they could ever inflict on their spouse. So one of their reasons to be dishonest is to protect their spouse from emotional pain. "Why add insult to injury," they reason. "What I did was wrong, but why put my spouse through needless pain by revealing this thoughtless act?" As is the case with bank robbers and murderers, unfaithful spouses don't think they will ever be discovered, and so they don't expect their unfaithfulness to hurt their spouse.

But I am one of the very few that advocate the revelation of affairs at all costs, even when the wayward spouse has no feelings of guilt or depression to overcome. I believe that honesty is so essential to the success of marriage, that hiding past infidelity makes a marriage dishonest, preventing emotional closeness and intimacy.

It isn't honesty that causes the pain, it's the affair. Honesty is simply revealing truth to the victim. Those who advocate dishonesty regarding infidelity assume that the truth will cause such irreparable harm, that it's in the best interest of a victimized spouse to go through life with the illusion of fidelity.

It's patronizing to think that a spouse cannot bear to hear the truth. Anyone who assumes that their spouse cannot handle truth is being incredibly disrespectful, manipulative and in the final analysis, dangerous. How little you must think of your spouse when you try to protect him or her from the truth.

It's not only patronizing, but it's also false to assume that your spouse cannot bear to hear the truth. Illusions do not make us happy; they cause us to wander through life, bumping into barriers that are invisible to us because of the illusion that is created. Truth, on the other hand, reveals those barriers, and sheds light on them so that we can see well enough to overcome them. The unsuspecting spouse of an unfaithful husband or wife wonders why their marriage is not more fulfilling and more intimate. Knowledge of an affair would make it clear why all efforts have failed…

… How the victimized spouse should respond to the revelation of an affair is a subject of a later column. I do not have the space to treat it here. But a spouse is twice victimized when he or she is lied to about an affair. Truth is far easier to handle than lies.”</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Peggy Vaughn also has comments on whether or not infidelity should be revealed. http://www.dearpeggy.com/com019.html

In Helen Fischer’s book “Why We Love : The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love”, Helen has found that our biochemical and behavioral response to being in love is to focus our attention exclusively on the object of these feelings. One of the key reasons that your reader should tell her husband about the kissing event is so that they can begin addressing why their relationship was vulnerable to this occurrence in the first place and take corrective action to increase the love in the relationship and protect it from future incidents which may be far more damaging.

Pat Love also addresses this biochemistry in her work, which includes “Hot Monogamy”. www.patlove.com I also had an opportunity to meet Pat at the SmartMarriages conference. She is a very dynamic speaker with a wealth of support from biological, chemical, sociological, anthropological, and psychological research.

At this point I must tell you that I have little use or respect for unsupported argumentation. I do, however, really love and enjoy a logical, respectful, documented debate. I care very little for someone’s credentials or education. Either there is a logical, documented, supported position or there is not. I am hoping that you can oblige.

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

*********************************************
Amy,

Oh, I’m not a reader. I certainly do not take nor implement advice on my life from columnists who give their advice based upon a few paragraph’s knowledge of a single person’s viewpoint of a given situation. To me, that doesn’t make sense. Life is far more complex than that. Since you research your column, it shouldn’t take you but a minute to forward to me your bibliography on which you based your advice to this particular reader.

I’m suspecting that you do not have this research documented. Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, I majored in Oral Communications, which comprises speech and debate. You display many of the key indicators for those who wish to argue based upon opinion rather than debate based upon documented research: your vague generalities and lack of defining any term or scope; defensiveness; sarcasm; attacking the opponent’s character/insulting them rather than refuting their position; and a tendency to go off on a tangent from the central issue to other issues. I call this the “red herring” approach. I can summarize it as, “Chase the little birdie; chase the little birdie; pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

I confess myself to be disappointed.

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

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

Amy,

You have time to send flaming emails to Penny Tupy, but you do not have the time to attach a bibliography? As I have before stated, I could care less about your credentials, for whom you write, or how much they pay for it.

I do not have the time to deal with vague generalities, pseudo-intellectualism, and cultivated ignorance. Should these conditions change, I am very interested in hearing your viewpoint.

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

********************************************
Amy,

Manipulation? In what way do you find my requests to be manipulative? I have simply asked for you to support your viewpoint. I have been very straightforward in my requests and why I want them. True manipulation is dishonest and sneaky. A good example of manipulation is preventing your spouse from reacting to your behavior by denying them knowledge of the behavior. Another word for this is conflict avoidance.

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

I find it interesting that honesty is "simplistic" but the alternative (which inherently must be dishonesty) is.....what? More complex? I find it much easier to lie. Lying makes my life much more simple.

Tak's H, "Do you know where that $200 went?"
Tak, "No idea. I can't believe it just disappeared like that!" [when Tak actually just bought herself a nice new outfit]

I await Amy's book, "Conflict Avoiding Your Way to a Happy Marriage."

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

So Tak, I'm dying of curiosity. Does she put the same charming privacy statement at the bottom of her emails to you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

C

No, actually, I'm the one that suggested she put it there. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Here's the latest in the thread of emails I posted earlier:
************************************************

Amy,

I am not asking you to do work for me. I would hardly want you to do work, particularly paid work, on a subject in which you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge or competence.

[Takola's Real Name]
*********************************************

Amy,

I guess that does come across as a bit cutting. I do not intend it as an insult, only as a statement of fact. You do seem to have an assumption that stating your opinion to someone has inherent market value and, therefore, must be paid for in order to be given. I grant that in entertainment venues this is very much the case and I congratulate you on having a profession in which you can take advantage of this. However, when it comes to debating and research of the type that articulates a clear position on one point or another, I do not make it a practice in either my job or personal life (of which this is a part) to pay for research or analysis by those for whom knowledge has not been clearly demonstrated.

Regards,
[Takola's Real Name]

<small>[ September 21, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: *Takola* ]</small>

Thread of emails suggesting a confidentiality and privacy notice:

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

Amy,

Perhaps you should simply be careful what unsupported assertations you make about the validity of marriage to a marriage advocate, especially since you are a published columnist. You had no supporting documentation or research to backup your stated hypothesis. Posting your received email does not require the permission of the sender, and is a common practice throughout the internet. Since you didn’t request privacy, I’m not precisely sure why you expected it. From what I’ve seen of your sarcastic reply, you are hardly one to make comments regarding anyone’s manners.

[Takola's Real Name]


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

Amy,

I have given you the link to where I saw your comments. Your email has no confidentiality or copyright notice. Perhaps you should add one.

[Takola's Real Name]