Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_beastie]

But, more likely than not, her assessment of the situation is spot on: your reaction to the first mistake was to find someone you could dominate psychologically and probably intellectually, too. That way, you are guaranteed of holding the reins all the time.

You are completely wrong in your assessment of my relationship, however, you have revealed something quite interesting about yourself in the meantime. You seem to think that a man who does not make suggestive comments to other women must be under the domination of his wife. That's an interesting viewpoint, and probably reveals more than you would like.

I am very sorry your wife has not experienced a relationship with a man who loves and respects her so much that he wouldn't even have the desire to make suggestive comments to other women, much less to have to be dominated and controlled in order not to do so. She has my sympathies.

[_Ray A]

What do you want, beastlie, a freaking notarized letter, with picture ID and a fingerprint?

I think perhaps Belinda hit the nail on the head: she saw what only one woman could see in another woman. You're a control freak. At least now you are. Sure, you probably had a bastard of a first husband, and I'm really sorry about that. Men who don't respect and adore their women aren't worthy to have a woman at their side.

But, more likely than not, her assessment of the situation is spot on: your reaction to the first mistake was to find someone you could dominate psychologically and probably intellectually, too. That way, you are guaranteed of holding the reins all the time.

Well, guess what, my dear -- that's not trust and respect. That's distrust set in stone, and disrespect in the form of faithless control.

If it works for you and your man, more power to you. But it's not how I would choose to live, and my bet is that most women would not prefer a man who was so easily dominated and so willingly disrespected.

I see. You're afraid of beastie because she doesn't submit to your patriarchial whims which allows you to call other married women "hot". She, obviously, is the "one out of line". You want a woman who will tie your shoelaces, serve you dinner with a smile, and ask what time you'll be home, so she can put on your pyjamas and cuddle you to sleep, while thinking of competition from the "other" 32 wives.

It's called, "Male Mormon Heaven". "I rule, you stay in the kitchen and cook dinner."

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

And don't forget, she agrees with Will's comments on how pleased he would be to see KA in a t-shirt, and, If I recall correctly, how he couldn't take his eyes of her chest when they met. And I wonder about what may have been said in chats that she condoned.

At least stick with the facts as you know them. Your forays into fictionalization don't become one who claims to be impressed solely by empirical evidence.

As a matter of fact, however, Mrs. S and I were just reading KA's blog entry about her breast exam (hilarious, by the way -- I highly recommend it) and I reminded her (Mrs. S.) that KA was the hot little dish I had seen in the black spaghetti strap number at the exmo conference in '06. (KA, to my knowledge, doesn't remember our brief meeting. I think she'd had a little to drink that evening.)

I realize you people are mega hung up on the notion that married couples could never have inviolable trust between themselves, and I'm sorry your respective experiences with love and relationships has been so poor. But the simple fact is that confident women married to devoted men don't spend much (if any) time wondering whether or not that man is going to cheat on them. They've long since become one with that man, and the very notion of that part of them destroying the other part never enters into their minds.

Nor would such a woman seek to suppress certain aspects of their man's personality just to give them some twisted sense of control over him. To me, that is patently pathological. And, ironically enough, if we were having this discussion in any other venue than a LDS-related message board, normal people would think that your finding something wrong with my commenting on KA's blog entry about her cosmetic surgery was just freakishly prudish, and anachronistically Victorian. It is, after all, the 21st century, and people do talk about such things absent any sense of shame.

Man, you people are the strangest collection of pathological hangups I have ever seen!

[_William Schryver]

But, more likely than not, her assessment of the situation is spot on: your reaction to the first mistake was to find someone you could dominate psychologically and probably intellectually, too. That way, you are guaranteed of holding the reins all the time.

You are completely wrong in your assessment of my relationship, however, you have revealed something quite interesting about yourself in the meantime. You seem to think that a man who does not make suggestive comments to other women must be under the domination of his wife. That's an interesting viewpoint, and probably reveals more than you would like.

I am very sorry your wife has not experienced a relationship with a man who loves and respects her so much that he wouldn't even have the desire to make suggestive comments to other women, much less to have to be dominated and controlled in order not to do so. She has my sympathies.

As you have hers.



Wow! It's no wonder there are so many analysts driving around in Mercedes.

Between you and Ray, there's enough material that Freud could spend another lifetime studying just the two of you.

Wow!

[_Ray A]

Between you and Ray, there's enough material that Freud could spend another lifetime studying just the two of you.

Wow!

Forget about Freud. An imbecile can work out your motives.

[_Ray A]

It is, after all, the 21st century, and people do talk about such things absent any sense of shame.

Man, you people are the strangest collection of pathological hangups I have ever seen!

And Will is liberated! And a Mormon to boot!! LOL.

I think it's quite possible Will contributes to 75% of porn-viewing in Utah.

You hung-up and religiously twisted little ziggurat.

[_beastie]

At least stick with the facts as you know them. Your forays into fictionalization don't become one who claims to be impressed solely by empirical evidence.

As a matter of fact, however, Mrs. S and I were just reading KA's blog entry about her breast exam (hilarious, by the way -- I highly recommend it) and I reminded her (Mrs. S.) that KA was the hot little dish I had seen in the black spaghetti strap number at the exmo conference in '06. (KA, to my knowledge, doesn't remember our brief meeting. I think she'd had a little to drink that evening.)

I realize you people are mega hung up on the notion that married couples could never have inviolable trust between themselves, and I'm sorry your respective experiences with love and relationships has been so poor. But the simple fact is that confident women married to devoted men don't spend much (if any) time wondering whether or not that man is going to cheat on them. They've long since become one with that man, and the very notion of that part of them destroying the other part never enters into their minds.

Nor would such a woman seek to suppress certain aspects of their man's personality just to give them some twisted sense of control over him. To me, that is patently pathological. And, ironically enough, if we were having this discussion in any other venue than a LDS-related message board, normal people would think that your finding something wrong with my commenting on KA's blog entry about her cosmetic surgery was just freakishly prudish, and anachronistically Victorian. It is, after all, the 21st century, and people do talk about such things absent any sense of shame.

Man, you people are the strangest collection of pathological hangups I have ever seen!

You’re right, it was a tank-top, not a Tshirt. My mistake.

You have an odd idea of what “inviolable trust” looks like. As I’ve said to you before on this topic, I know there are some married couples who get turned on by watching each other flirt and make suggestive comments to other people – and sometimes even more than that. I can’t imagine that these people would be active LDS, however. I also know that there are some married couples who are so emotionally disengaged that they really don’t care what their spouse may say to others. And, as well, there are some married couples in which one partner has decided to tolerate a certain amount of flirtation and suggestive behavior, as long as it goes no further than that, although the tolerant partner usually isn’t thrilled about the “compromise”. Being LDS would not disqualify those scenarios, so they are real possibilities.

Perhaps your wife has reason to believe that you will never act on your suggestive, flirtatious behavior. That could be the “inviolable trust” portion, I suspect. But the question remains: does a man who truly loves and respects his wife behave in such a manner? Sure, he may love her, but I doubt the respect part of the equation.

Despite your personal traits of bravado and grandiosity, you seem to be a fairly intelligent man. You should be intelligent enough to realize that what I’m pointing out isn’t simply “commenting about KA’s cosmetic surgery” – it’s rather your cyber-drooling over females other than your wife. You’re just tap-dancing now.

My opinion is that men who brag the loudest about their supposed virility and manhood, and decry other men as “emasculated”, are usually protesting a bit too loudly. My opinion is that men – like women – who have no reason to feel insecure about their sexuality (either performance or attractions), also have no reason to go around loudly proclaiming how virile and manly they are.

Here’s why I am skeptical that an active LDS female would be comfortable with her husband behaving the way you do:

If you are married, avoid flirtations of any kind. Sometimes we hear of a married man going to lunch with his secretary or other women in the office. Men and women who are married sometimes flirt and tease with members of the opposite sex. So-called harmless meetings are arranged, or inordinate amounts of time are spent together. In all of these cases, people rationalize by saying that these are natural expressions of friendship. But what may appear to be harmless teasing or simply having a little fun with someone of the opposite sex can easily lead to more serious involvement and eventual infidelity.
A good question to ask ourselves is this: Would my spouse be pleased if he or she knew I was doing this? Would a wife be pleased to know that her husband lunches alone with his secretary? Would a husband be pleased if he saw his wife flirting and being coy with another man? My beloved brothers and sisters, this is what Paul meant when he said: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22).

President Ezra Taft Benson
The Message:
The Law of Chastity
http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1
This statement of President Benson’s was also repeated in the Institute manual about marriage.

Now, of course it’s possible that Will’s wife thinks this is quaint, silly, and “emasculated” advice. I’m sure there are some LDS women like that – but I also imagine their numbers would be extraordinarily small, and the chances that Will’s wife just happens to be one of those women even smaller. While I could be wrong, of course, in my opinion it is far, far more likely that Will’s wife is simply unaware of his internet behavior, and he’s putting on an act here.
But there’s no doubt – Will feels some need to engage in bravado concerning his virile manhood.

[_Trevor]

Has this thread strayed far enough away from the OP that we can just let it die?
.
.
.
.
.

[_Yoda]

Has this thread strayed far enough away from the OP that we can just let it die?
.
.
.
.
.

Oh, not before Will responds to Beastie. This is just getting interesting.

[_William Schryver]

Has this thread strayed far enough away from the OP that we can just let it die?
.
.
.
.
.

Oh, not before Will responds to Beastie. This is just getting interesting.

As you wish ...
.
.
.
In the course of less than a week we have been able, as expected, to reach the pinnacle of irony in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™:

Beastlie (an unmarried woman living with a man) and Ray Agostini (an adulterer and long-time “lone wolf” predatory male) lecturing on marital fidelity and the meaning of chastity to a man who has “known” but one woman, who in turn has “known” but one man, and who have been blissfully joined in matrimony for almost three decades.

Folks, it simply does not get any richer than this.

It remains the task of the artists and the social scientists to sort out the various reasons and motivations behind the almost-comical reality of how exmormons just love to set themselves up as the arbiters of morality for their former brothers and sisters in the faith.

I mean, the mere idea of beastlie citing Ezra Taft Benson ( ) in an attempt to condemn what she views as the moral turpitude of a faithful LDS message board adversary … oh, my! Logic and reason are meaningless in this wonderland, and yet no one seems to detect anything amiss in the tableau thus produced!

Well, in my estimation, this is classic exmormon behavior in spades. And I’m satisfied, once again, that – if nothing else – the exmormon remains perhaps the most predictable species in the social environment on planet earth.

Thank you one and all for participating in the study.

‘Til we meet, ‘til we meet, … ‘til we meet again …