Posted on 03/16/2008 12:41:03 PM PDT by SJackson
Dr. Laura Schlesinger has a penchant for inane and knee-jerk moralizing. But last week even she outdid herself, as she blamed Elliot Spitzer's long-suffering wife, Silda, for her husband's unfaithfulness with a prostitute.
Speaking on the Today show, Dr. Laura opined: "When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like our hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. These days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need."
According to Dr. Laura's approach, these poor, neglected husbands have been pushed by their rebellious wives into being porn and sex addicts. How sad that in the wake of the Elliot Spitzer tragedy we get Dr. Laura's blame-the-victim drivel rather than an honest discussion on the downfall of the American Male.
Men today are cheating not because their wives do not love them, but because they do not love themselves; not because their wives are not caring, but because their perforated sense of self is immune to affection. Were their wives to shower them with all the love in the world, it would simply seep through the shards of their shattered egos.
Propelled to succeed by an all-encompassing fear of failure and thrown into a rat race without limit, the broken American male never feels like he is ever good enough and chooses destructive escapes to compensate.
Powerful men like Spitzer are especially susceptible to the irrational self-loathing that is increasingly affecting the American male. Whatever level of achievement he attains, it is never enough to quiet the inner demons that tell him he is worthless. A culture built on soulless success has raised a generation of men to believe they are anonymous unless they accumulate money or fame, with women being yet another prized possession that accrues to the alpha male.
TRAINED TO feel like they are important only through professional achievement, these men are clueless about being in a relationship. They know how to master rather than relate, how to conquer rather than open up, how to manipulate rather than connect.
For the man to whom power is an aphrodisiac, paying a woman for sex becomes an erotic thrill. And men with low self-esteem are profoundly susceptible to women who are not their wives.
The man who sees himself as a loser sees the woman dumb enough to marry him as a loser squared. His wife's affection, therefore, cannot make him feel like a winner. It is only the woman to whom he is not married, the one that has not been devalued through a merger with a failure, that can make him feel consequential. And a woman who is so desirable that a night with her can set you back thousands of dollars can make a guy feel like a million bucks.
Bill Clinton may have been the most powerful man in the world. But all that power could not inflate an ego so punctured that it sought significance in a liaison with an all-too-ordinary intern who understood the depth of his need to feel good about himself.
LAST WEEK in Los Angeles I debated my dear friend Dennis Prager, the brilliant radio host and public intellectual, on whether men or women are more responsible for the breakdown of the American family. I argued that broken men are undermining their families; Dennis claimed that the blame was equally shared.
Now Dennis has always been a mentor to me. But, come on! You have to be blind not to see that men are in crisis. They are three times more likely to cheat on a spouse, eight times more likely to abandon their children (how often do you hear of a dead-beat Mom?), commit 98 percent of all violent crimes, and stand a decent chance of becoming porn addicts.
Even if they overcome the porn, they usually end up sports and TV addicts, who spend, on average, three hours per day in front of the tube. And that's three hours where they are not helping with the dishes, putting the kids to sleep, or being with their wives.
Sex for men has become a game of mastery rather than intimacy. A shocking statistic from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, published providentially on the same day of the outbreak of the Spitzer scandal, showed that one in four female American teens has an STD. Millions of teenage boys are pushing girls to have sex well before their bodies are ready, and without any kind of protection. Sexual scandals among powerful men should likewise spur us to action.
THE SOLUTION is to set a new definition of success among American men that is dependent not on becoming the competent governor of a state, but on becoming the responsible head of a household. The great man is not only he who can balance state budgets but he who helps his children with their algebra. Not he who hits home runs, but he who runs home to be with his family. Not he who wins primaries, but he who makes his wife and his children primary.
In this political season, it is in vogue to believe that pulling a lever for a particular candidate will bring us the change we desire. But it is we who have to change. America is not wanting in talented senators and industrious politicians. Rather, it is wanting in loving husbands and devoted fathers.
In the final analysis, what the people of New York think of Elliot Spitzer is not nearly as important as what his wife and children think of him. Because you are not a success in life if the people who mean the most to you think the least of you.
If the woman is 'acting' (faking it), there lies the problem.
A man naturally expects the woman he loves and is committed to by virtue of marriage to emotionally support him. If the person you love and who you assume loves you can't find it in themselves to encourage you and/or let you know they think you're special (to them, anyway), who will?
Enter the hooker, cute co-worker or next-door neighbor's frisky wife. Whatever the focus of his mistaken attention, a man who is deprived of emotional support and attention from his wife (not to mention, sex) will often seek and find solace somewhere else, even if has to pay for it and even if it risks destroying his life, as happened with Spitzer. None of this excuses adultery on the part of a husband but it does help explain why it happens. Unfortunately, many women don't like the explanation so they try to kill the messenger. In this case, Dr. Laura.
The male ego - a need for 'validation', if you will, won't be denied. Fame, power and wealth can't substitute for a loving wife that thinks her man is the greatest. If these other things could, powerful men would never get married...but they do.That many wives think they can do so with no consequence makes them part of the problem, which is Dr. Laura's point. A point dismissed and ridiculed by some but that also has a lot of male heads bobbing up and down in silent agreement and that should be recognized, not reflexively disputed based, mostly, on feminist orthodoxy.
That some folks seem to view a wife's sexual availability and emotional support for her husband superfluous to the man's emotional well-being demonstrates the validity of Laura Schlesinger's contention that society seems to have given married women the idea that she has little obligation to her husband and that he doesn't need or expect much from her because, if he's all that self-confident, he is his own best friend.
That kind of egotistical attitude in a husband will kill a marriage, fast. The 'praise and adoration' you sneer at should be mutual and should be expressed often, even if in sometime subtle ways. This kind of mutually appreciative attitude is what can keeps a marriage strong.
Um...he's the Governor of New York - he could do no such thing. He had to pay the huge premiums to keep his liaisons quiet.
Ann Archy, I think you’re onto a major point here.
Politics as a profession tends to attract those who are narcissistic—and favor those who are willing to cheat.
Thus a high percentage of political men enjoy flexing their power for fawning adulation—and are willing to cheat to get it.
Spitzer is a fool, he could have found a better looking and more interesting woman at a local bar and it would have only cost him a couple of margaritas.
__________________
He wasn’t paying for the sex. He was paying for her to go away after the sex.
I think they’re both wrong. Dr. Laura is wrong to blame the wife. We don’t know what kind of a marriage it was. Maybe she’s a difficult wife. But that doesn’t excuse what he did. Few marriages are perfect. More important, we are, each of us, responsible for our own behavior, regardless of how much we are provoked.
Similarly, Boteach says that the reason so many teenage girls have STDs is that: “Millions of teenage boys are pushing girls to have sex well before their bodies are ready, and without any kind of protection.”
No, sorry. The boys may be pushing, but so are the girls. No one is MAKING them do it. They may be poorly brought up, badly educated in school, deprived of religious and moral training, but they still have to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES. There can be difficult circumstances, but people somehow have to learn to stand up for themselves and do the right thing.
It should read "it is never enough to quiet the inner demons that tells him he is entitled."
Dr. Laura is usually spot on, but she dropped the ball on this one. Even she should have been able to peg Spitzer as an egomaniac.
I think that what Spitzer did was self destructive. He has body guards who know what he does and there are tabloid's that would pay a lot for embarrassing the Gov of a large state. He had to know that no matter how careful he was, it was only a matter of time, before the truth would come out.
So, yes Spitzer was probably self destructive or so self centered that he believed he would beat all odds.
Next, why would a man with a wife and young children at home want to cheat on his wife for over ten years? I think that he was searching for something that he didn't get with his wife.
Because they do not see it as throwing anything away. They have allowed themselves to become evil because they have no idea what good or evil is anymore.
Nothing is bad if it gives me a moments pleasure.
Nothing is good if it causes me the slightest inconvenience.
This is their motto. Eventually it brings them down.
i found only ONE set of things to call SURPRISING in the Eliot Spitzer fiasco
the ability of his inner circle to keep the sexual trysts secret or his ability to keep them from his inner circle
as a prosecutor and later as AG, Spitzer had the extreme ego, extreme hubris, extreme bullying nature, together with high-pitched moralizing (in a secular sense) that often are attributes of the mortally flawed high-and-mighty whose rise is often but an anticipation of their fall
the ‘people’ in NY remained the media’s sheeple as the media raised up spitzer’s ‘progressive-populist’ star, willingly, ignoring that the ends - going after ‘those greedy capitalists’ - must be justified by the means - the law - and NOT simply populist angst
spitzer readily illustrates the axiom that what goes around comes around
there really was no surprise - only a question of when
Dr. Laura sure seems to know a lot about Silda Spitzer-—of course-—Laura knows a lot about EVERYTHING—her arrogance and downright ickiness combined to move her, years ago, off the national stage. after her brief sojourn in the spotligfht. This issue is not even worth being discussed in the terms she puts it in: Laura applies her own rigid templates to chaotic human experience, because she is simple-minded.
“would have cost him a couple of margaritas”
-—been to a bar lately? Magaritas are now about
$500 each-——x 2 consumed in ONE HOUR equals the pay scale of Ashley Alexandra Dupre , who probably got the margarita free, but had to buy the condom.
Absolutely right!
"IMHO, which is as valid as Bill's and Shmuley's, I am convinced that Spitzer's ego got so big, he believed himself to be Omnipotent (as opposed to impotent lol) and was convinced he would not get caught and even if he did, would be immune from exposure and retribution."
I think your analysis is more likely than the ones put forth in the article. Go ahead and hang out your shingle;)
Exactly (the mutual statement you made in the last paragraph - but ITA with the entire post, too). Wish I could figure out how to do the thing with posting what the other poster said.
Also, I’m a self assured, confident woman but it’s always nice (and a turn on) to hear my husband praise and adore me with words and actions (and vice versa).
You are right. I agree totally. But if love is lacking, then she shouldn't do the 'validation of his ego' thing.
Love is not a one sided emotion. When a woman loves her man, she will do anything for him. (Believe me, I know.) The same should go for a man. If he loves his wife, he should 'stroke' her in every way he can.
Love survives, and flourishes with reciprocation.
But, if a man is seeing hookers, then that (to me, at least), is a good sign that something is seriously lacking at home, and it's not all the wife's fault, (as Dr. Laura suggests.)
H. Page Williams wrote a wonderful book, titled, "Do Yourself A Favor: Love Your Wife."
And, then this from the Bible:
Here’s another take. Eliot Spitzer is a self-centered a$$h*le. He achieved his position in life, through a combination of his father’s wealth, a lack of integrity, and the press’ willingness to cover up his character flaws.
People like him believe that the laws and conventions of society are simply a weapon to be used on inferior people (everyone other than themselves), and it never occurs to them that they should be subject to those same laws and social conventions.
The article is so ridiculous on so many fronts that I don’t even know where to begin.
Spitzer is a spoiled little rich thug. As a liberal and as a lawyer, he genuinely believes that he is above the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.