Yates lived by rigid schedule, according to husband

The Dallas Morning News ^ | March 1, 2002 (The Ides of March are upon us!) | By TERRI LANGFORD / The Dallas Morning News

[wimpycat]

Very well put! I feel pretty much the same way about the whole thing.

[maxwell]

Dude, you keep saying the same damn thing over and over again and I'm still lost on yer position here. Lemme get this straight-- you think Yates should've manhandled his wife around a little and straightened her a$$ up, that he "controlled" her in the wrong way.

[craigoethe]

I think both of you might be misunderstanding each other.

Please see my post 405, Adam. A man and a woman should have respect for each other. Because I respect and honor my wife, I would never dream of ordering her around as though she were my property. Nor do I tell her when she can have private time away from me and the kiddies. It appears that neither Rusty nor Andrea had any respect for each other at all.

[craigoethe]

Rusty should have recognized his wife's mental instability and stopped having children for a while.

[Bella_Bru]

Does your god tell you that you must put your wife on a schedule and tell her when she may have free time?

[Bella_Bru]

Har har. Actually, I like sex. Fun sex. Not the old, missionary position, in a darkened room only, pray like hell you get pregnant sex that is favored by some.

[Bella_Bru]

Does my boss make a schedule for me? Yeah...come in at 7:30. Not, "At 8:15 file this, at 8:32 run this report....."etc.

I am sure you will find many Christian FReepers here who do NOT tell their wives that they must iron at noon, dust at 2:35, and sweep at 4:10. Does that make them less Christian to you?

And why did he still insist on having more children, even though she had attempted suicide and was obviously unstable? Was her mental illness less important than his own need for self-gratification through more kids?

[Bella_Bru]

Interesting site.

[Bella_Bru]

Third, if the man was to continue a conjugal relationship with his wife, it would up to her as much as up to him as whether they were to conceive again.

A man who plans his wife's day and tells her how much personal time she is allowed to have probably isn't about to let her use any form of birth control or use it himself.

[Bella_Bru]

Tell me, if the woman had not had a fifth child, and still drowned her children, would you argue that her husband shouldn't have put her through a fourth pregnancy?

No, I would not. But, it still remains that he ignored her mental condition. Yes, the children should have been removed from her. But then, wouldn't that be breaking up their family, another no-no in his book?

Also from the article:

Although he conceded that the newsletter he and his wife read advocated natural childbirth for a "humbling experience for a woman," Mr. Yates said it was his wife's idea to go without local anesthetic.

Someone who liked controlling every aspect of his wife's life was actually willing to let her choose this part. I doubt that. Maybe choice as in, "Fine, take the epiduaral, but God will get mad at you if you do." Is he a sadist too?