Because women are property with no wills of their own.
In other words, you suck, Labs.
Well...it's just annoying that men who claim there is a "Man Code" are taken to represent all men. I have nothing to say to this.
Really, "he slept with my wife" seems to be interchangeable with "he drove my convertible without asking" here. If all y'all really think that way, just keep it to yourselves.
Hmm, let's see if I can Jesuit myself out of this one. Couldn't one be angry at both parties, thereby respecting women's agency?
The question is, who has made what promises to you? That person is the one you should be mad at. If you're going to be mad.
Of course, one could get into the whole "why be mad, it's not like pussy (or, from the other pov, cock) is something that gets used up" thing. But we can't challenge conventional wisdom, lest the entire world collapse.
Why is this even complicated? Does anyone think that sleeping with your friend's significant other is no big deal, whatever the gender combinations? You can call it Man Law or selling out the sisterhood, or whatever the hell you want, but it just means "betrayal."
What? What is so crazy about thinking it's wrong to sleep with your best friend's wife? How does that deny a woman agency?
Thank god the traditional boundaries reassert themselves. B, I was agreeing with you too much; now it's back to beer-n-football with SCMT and Ogged.
7: Of course. But the point is that the whole "I'm mad at my friend for betraying me" thing is dumb. Your friend didn't make promises to you; your partner did.
Really, Cala got it exactly right.
This is going to be another of those threads where we have to explain, from the ground up, why jealousy is a human emotion that we can't just will away, why sex often causes emotional attachments, why betrayal causes anger, etc. etc.
5: I would prefer to just get angry at all three people for apparently living in a milieu in which a man inducing a woman to have sex with him is a move in a high-stakes, exciting zero-sum game of interpersonal status and power.
Or to put it another way...do you think anyone here on this blog would ever betray his best friend in this way, unless he had spent weeks staying up at night agonizing before deciding that in fact his best friend's wife was his soul mate and it would be worth the destruction of the friendship to be with her for e'er and alway?
I just get annoyed at people who seem to live in a world where doing things like "trading up to a trophy wife" is something they atcually see as a near-inevitable result of success. I stopped reading the Bill Simmons sports column a few weeks ago for this reason.
Your friend didn't make promises to you; your partner did.
You really don't think there are implicit promises of friendship ? And is it so unimaginable that a marriage might be in a sufficiently rough trough that you can't find yourself holding your spouse to the normal promises? That is, that while you would be angry if your spouse slept with someone, you could also sort of understand why it happened.
The friendship might contain implicit promises, B, or things that are a lot like them.
13 and 14, yes, of course. But then the *article referenced in the original post* doesn't actually treat these things in a serious way, now, does it?
11: All those things are true. The conclusions that one draws from them, however, are not inevitable, is all I'm saying.
If it'll make y'all happy, though, we can all say "yes, god, cheating sucks." And then this will be a really interesting thread.
But in that case, SCMT, you wouldn't be any more upset at the friend than you were at the wife, if it was obvious to him as well that the marriage was falling apart. Unless, that is, you followed the wife:fuck::convertible:drive paradigm that seems implicit in the "Man Laws" (and leads to a block on even asking out a friend's ex-girlfriend, as this would lead to an implied insult to the ex-boyfriend's social standing).
Look, I agree with implicit promises, of the general implicity duties of society to help rather than thwart people's attempts to keep their contracts. I would be mad at the spouse who cheated and the friend that cheated with them.
I'm just saying the guys in the article sounded like their justification for being upset was 'he took friend's woman. bad to take friends' toys. women don't understand.'
Oh, I know this is hopelessly naive, but I can't help myself:
I can totally understand why it would feel like a deep betrayal to have a trusted colleague sleep with my sig. other. I cannot understand at all why it would feel like a deep betrayal to me to have some other dude sleep other dude's sig. other. Why on god's green earth am I supposed to give a shit about where my mayor's pecker's been, if the subway's running on time and the garbage is getting picked up? Because it says something about his "judgement?" No it doesn't. It says something about his libido, about which a fuck I cannot give. It just kills me that so much is discussion is given to the sexual proclivities of these idiots while so little is given to stuff that actually matters.
I know, I know, why ever bother with this standard complaint. Ech.
What I find crazy is the claim that this is some kind of "Man Law." I know of no women who wouldn't feel betrayed if their best friend slept with their husband. Cripes, it's easy to imagine it being a bigger betrayal to a woman; many are the times I've seen claims by women that female friendships are deeper, richer, and more meaningful than male friendships.
'he took friend's woman. bad to take friends' toys. women don't understand.'
Now, now, boys. You can *share*.
I'm not sure why this should be surprising. l'Morte d'Arthur anyone? This specific type of love triangle is virtually always coded as tragically romantic from the female point of view, and apocalyptic from the male p.o.v. The cultural context doesn't make it any less stupid, but there you have it. This is kinda what I was on about in that other thread that I barely even remember so I'm not gonna waste time trying to link to it. To wit: while there are a lot of regular, middle-class folx who go through the motions of equality and mouth the right phrases, the extent to which, when push comes to shove, people have recourse to plain old patriarchy is disturbing, and far more prevalent than is acknowledged in discourse. I guess the only way I can see a non-gender-bound argument for the positions that men express in the linked article is along the lines of "you were cheated on, not just with some stranger, but with a close friend, so you're doubly a chump." Got horns?
Oh, and mad props to 5 for verbifying the Jesuits.
On the up side, the article nicely refutes Hirshman's thesis that women are irrational about voting.
Let's talk instead about why *men who aren't the ones betrayed* would be mad about it, which is what the piece is really about.
10: It's a bit reductionist to say that the only promises that are important are the ones made explicitly in public. Implicit promises that are understood are also pretty important. Close friends *do* make the promise to not sleep with their best friend's significant others. Call it the "man code" or just call it friendship. Betraying a close friendship is pretty low.
25: I didn't actually say that. What I said is that if the issue is, as the article pretends, who you should be madder at, and why, it's dumb to think that the friend who wants to fuck the same person you do is somehow committing a greater betrayal than the person who's actually promised not to cheat on you.
Wow was I ever pwned. Gotta learn to comment faster.
But you're right, I am being reductionist. I tend to do that when I'm making what seems to me to be a fairly fundamental point that's going unrecognized.
On the other hand, I think that part of what establishes romantic and nonromantic friendship is the demarcation of various boundaries or lack thereof, and, since the wife-n-friend scenario contains the violation of two relationships with one act, it's especially traumatic.
Prediction: baa will think this conversation is from Mars.
The thing is that your spouse (in a typical closed setting) is betraying you no matter whom they fuck. So the betrayal is more understandable, after all you yourself have probably really wanted to fuck someone else. But your friend had *the whole rest of the world* to fuck without betraying you, so the betrayal is lower and less understandable, and thus reflects more poorly on the person's character.
But in that case, SCMT, you wouldn't be any more upset at the friend than you were at the wife, if it was obvious to him as well that the marriage was falling apart.
and
who you should be madder at, and why, it's dumb to think that the friend who wants to fuck the same person you do is somehow committing a greater betrayal than the person who's actually promised not to cheat on you.
Apparently, you people have only been in magical long-term relationships, wherein you've never hurt the other person sufficiently that various types of betrayal are, if not OK, understandable. In my world, there's a good chance that you've not hurt or been cruel in word or deed to even your close friends in the way that you have to your significant other.
29, yes.
30 is basically a reiteration of the idea that women are interchangable property.
31: No; we're not talking about whether or not people feel certain ways, but whether or not such feelings should be reified.
31: unless you're ogged, and then you just call them racial epithets.
But your friend had *the whole rest of the world* to fuck without betraying you
Except you, presumably.
Plus, if you want to talk about "understandable" betrayal, what's more understandable than a friend thinking that the person *you* like best is, indeed, the most desirable person out there?
s, but whether or not such feelings should be reified.
Which is the feeling here that shouldn't be reified: compassion and understanding for your significant other, or the expectation that your friend won't take advantage of a rough patch because he really wants to have sex with your significant other?
If a friend of mine slept with my honey, I'd never speak to either of them again.
30 is basically a reiteration of the idea that women are interchangable property
No. No, it isn't. The same logic would obtain if the situation involved three gay men. Honestly B, sometimes I think you're being willfully obtuse.
7: If you're in a non-open marriage, I think that it's reasonable to assume that your friends are not going to hit on your wife. It's a pretty reasonable implied contract.
I'm anti-relationship of any kind, but if I changed my mind, God forbid, I would expect respect for my relationship from whatever friends I had.
I agree with 39. 30 seems like a pretty good refutation of 35 to me.
Also, it should be pointed out that jealousy, in fact, exists.
I feel like we're all talking past each other. I read most of us as saying "given the assumption that fucking other people is a betrayal, the best friend is a rat bastard who should be shunned by you and your other friends," while I read B as saying "the assumption that fucking other people is a betrayal is only a side-affect of treating each other (and particularly women) as property." Am I misstating things? or is there some substantive agreement?
(Otherwise, I can't for the life of me understand how 32 and 38. Though 35 is certainly sensible.)
So when you talk about "friendship" among other kinds of primates, what you're describing is alliances made for the purpose of relieving some of the pressure of competition for resources, or sometimes for mounting effective competition against a totally dominant competitor. For males, the most valued resource is inevitably access to mates. So when one male in an alliance snatches the mate of the other allied male, it's fairly catastrophic for the cheated male: the rules of partnership with the mate are broken, the rules of alliance with other males are broken, and the most valued asset is lost. It would be threatening to other males because it raises the perceived cost of male-male alliances by altering the estimated risk:benefit ratio.
So despite my previous comment, I suppose I can understand why straight SF guys are pissed at Gavin, but I still wish they'd find something useful to worry about.
"agreement" s/b "disagreement"
28 -- "going unrecognized" ... didn't you comment first? Also note that Newsome was divorcing, so he didn't break a promise to his wife. The promise-breaking could only have been in the friendship. 12 -- he wasn't moving up to a trophy wife...his ex is a beautiful woman.
I agree with the "what business is it of mine" comment.
For me, having neither friends nor relationships, questions of this sort are completely abstract, of course.
I'm really not sure even of what the argument is. Politically, this would come under "I don't care who politicians have sex with, particularly." Personally, 'friend' isn't just one thing. I'd be pissed at anyone who slept with Buck, but what would be much more important to me is what he did -- I don't have any friends where the friendship is more important, or close to as important, than my marriage. I suppose a friendship like that is possible, but they have to be rare.
After saying that, maybe I understand Bitch's argument, at least -- isn't there an implicit assumption in the article that male friendships are just more significant than relationships between men and women, and so the man on man betrayal is a bigger deal than the woman's betrayal of her husband?
I disagree with my own use of the word "refutation" since it probably has some actual meaning in the world of philosophy. Will now stop using the internet for today.
37: if a friend of mine slept with my honey, I'm not sure whom I'd smack first, but both of them would be in deep shit.
Also, no "how" in 42. Some day I'll make comments that are both error-free and not pwned due to excessive rereading. Or, maybe that's just beyond my abilities.
I suppose I can understand
However, I don't understand why anybody not personally involved in the situation would give a good goddamn where the mayor wets his willie, just as I remain mystified why people who had never met any of the involved parties (a sentiment that seemed particularly strong among liberal women) seemed so personally affronted at Clinton's wandering wang.
Your president/mayor doesn't have to be a good person, they just have to be a good president/mayor. And sexual exploits really don't enter into that equation for me in the least.
Oh, and in this particular case there's an added insult. Because Newsom is the higher-ranking male in this case and has betrayed an alliance with a lower-ranking male, in addition to altering the risk:benefit calculation for all observing males, he has demonstrated the hazards of low status, particularly in relationships with higher-status males. He made the status anxiety of all observing males salient, so everybody who might already feel threatened by a higher status male, feels even moreso.
Another factor that might be at work: If your S.O. sleeps with your best friend, it is very likely they are in LoveLoveLove, rather than just fooling around. Some people find it more threatening. I know one study said that men were more threatened by physical betrayal and women by emotional betrayal. But it is only one study, and even if it is accurate, it doesn't meant that men are completely unthreatened by emotional betrayal.
In 51, my parenthetical is in the wrong place, but I trust my meaning remains clear.
if the issue is, as the article pretends, who you should be madder at
This is not seem to be a reasonable reading of the article. It is about how sleeping with a friend's spouse is, as 29 reasonably and correctly notes, viewed as more egregious misconduct because of the double betrayal (well, the article is also about how all men think alike and live by the "Man Code").
I do agree with you, B.Ph.D., that the person withom you should be most upset is your spouse, whose betrayal (assuming promises of fidelity) is greater. My first wife left me for my best friend, and I certainly was more upset with her than him (although suffuce it to say that I no longer considered him my friend). I think most people react that same way. But the fact remains that both my wife and my friend violated a trust, making the felling of betrayal worse than if she had run off with the mailman.
And I agree that the vehemance of some of the reactions by men reported were a bit odd (as was the comment by the woman that the aides hould feel flattered that his wife was found fuckable by such an auguast person as the mayor)
my parenthetical is in the wrong place, but I trust my meaning remains clear.
That's probably what the mayor said to his wife.
isn't there an implicit assumption in the article that male friendships are just more significant than relationships between men and women, and so the man on man betrayal is a bigger deal than the woman's betrayal of her husband?
No. It means that your support network--which you might depend upon when, understandably, shit goes wrong in things that are even more important to you--sucks. And that might reasonably make you angry, as you--one assumes--have not done anything to your friend that might justify the betrayal in a way that you might have done to your spouse.
39: Wouldn't three gay men just have a three way and settle everything?
51: Of course, I agree. But, see 52.
58: Not the ones I know. Well, not all of them, anyway.
58: Yeah, like that worked in Chasing Amy.
Sorry, I was making a homophobic joke at the expense of stereotypes of gay male promiscuity. The frathaus atmosphere got to me.
the vehemance of some of the reactions by men
in ref to 52, I'd bet that the vehemence of the reaction could be roughly predicted by the age and SES of the men interviewed.
58: Yes, although one of them would still be sent away in the end.
Jeez. Expert or no, even the Attorney General recuses when neck deep in that shit.
62: Dammit, you know what? So was I.
Just call me Steppin' Swishit.
I think it depends who was the aggressor, to some extent. I was in a relationship, and a "friend" of mine spent the first six months of it trying to seduce my bf. When we were all very drunk at a party, they kissed and she made a big deal of it, like "See? See? He has secretly wanted me all along. I think you should dump him because he doesn't really care about you, the cheater."
In this instance, I was more angry with my friend, though I was also angry with my bf. But he and I had intimacy and investment and a trust that could at least be regained. Her, I never trusted, not for a second.
If it had been a friend for whom I had respect and trust, I would have dumped the guy and tried to understand what happened from her point of view.
a point on B's side:
The men interviewed are having sympathetic feelings of jealousy and betrayal for the staffer. Is it at all surprising that they filter these feelings through patriarchal images and traditions?
If your S.O. sleeps with your best friend, it is very likely they are in LoveLoveLove, rather than just fooling around.
I'm really not convinced of that. It seems more likely that they're both being short-sighted idiots who have managed to convince themselves that they are in LoveLoveLove in order to justify breaking out of a social order that they are unhappy with.
isn't there an implicit assumption in the article that male friendships are just more significant than relationships between men and women, and so the man on man betrayal is a bigger deal than the woman's betrayal of her husband
I do not find this to be a reasonable reading of the article.
it's reasonable to assume that your friends are not going to hit on your wife.
It's not reasonable, however, to assume that your wife isn't going to hit on your friends? Or that if your friends *do* hit on your wife, that your wife is going to actually have the ability to say no?
42: I'm not exactly saying that feeling betrayed is only a side-effect of the idea that women are property. Though I would go so far as to say that feeling more betrayed about sex than about anything else *is* related to the idea that one's partner is property (though that's not the only issue). What I'm saying is that if the argument is that the friend's betrayal is *more* meaningful than the spouse's, what is that based on? One argument is the idea that a spouse is property, and a friend's sleeping with your spouse--after all, she/he's *your* spouse--is akin to stealing. There are of course other, equally valid arguments. But "jealousy is natural" isn't one of them.
Looking at the story, this seems to me to be a pretty clear equation of women with property:
"Hello?" wrote Mike Mulholland, 43, who grew up in the Bay Area before moving to San Diego County. "Newsom slept with his friend's wife. What if he stole from a friend? Or tried to frame a friend? Would that also be nobody's business?"My other observation is as regards this:
"There is a code that men live by," says family therapist Tracey Gersten, a woman. "Women may not know about it, or they may pooh-pooh it, but it is very real. I think if you put a group of men in a room, they'd have no trouble putting a man code together."I don't ever want to have a therapist who seems to believe that men inflicting such group beliefs on individual males is not a bad thing. (Granting that the quote may be sufficiently out of context as to be misleading, perhaps.)
Of course, my mind was ruined by all that Seventies feminism crap that so many are now so thankfully post, just as they're post-racism, post-anti-Semitism, and so on. It's a good thing we don't need to worry about any of that stuff any more!
I don't have any friends where the friendship is more important, or close to as important, than my marriage. I suppose a friendship like that is possible, but they have to be rare.
Wait, what?
Eh, I'm not committed to it -- as I said I'm not exactly sure what anyone is arguing: I think everyone agrees they'd be mad at both people. And the mayor's role is getting overemphasized because he's the news hook, and without him none of this is in the paper.
But the fact that the story focuses on this as one man's betrayal of another man, rather than noting that the betrayal of friendship isn't nearly as big a deal as the marital betrayal, does (with all the caveats in the past paragraph) suggest my interpretation might have something to it.
72: If your marriage isn't as important, or more important, than most (not all) of your friendships, then you might want to think twice about being married.
By bet is that Newsom might have had a top-dog dominance thing going with his "friend" -- some guys have to do that. For him the wife may just have been a pawn, as far as he was concerned. Maybe a lot of guys interpreted it that way, which is demeaning to the woman.
Actually, one of my dysfunctions during my pre-relationshop-free era was an unwillingness to play with the restless wives/girlfriends of guys I had met socially -- much less friends. I just felt bad about it. A lot of women seem willing to trade up to a better guy, or move horizontally, who are not willing to go out on their own and start looking from there.
72: You mean I've contradicted advice I gave you in the past about relying on friends more than romantic relationships? Marriage is a big deal -- you were talking about making someone you'd been on a date with more important than your friends. There's a crossover point somewhere in between there.
I think it's also important to distinguish between what is really bad, and what is really low and squicky. I mean, cheating on your spouse is really bad, but it happens so often (especially with politicians) that we're used to it. It's evil, but in a run-of-the-mill way. But sleeping with your campaign manager's wife is really low and unexpected.
To break Ogged's analogy ban, there's a difference between shooting a few people, and killing and dismembering just one with a bone saw. The former is definitely worse, but man whoever did the latter is one fucked up person.
"But "jealousy is natural" isn't one of them."
I don't think you need to go as far as 'the only reason anyone would ever be upset about cheating is that they think of their partner as property' to disagree with the article. The article claims, in property-sounding language, that men are upset with the mayor, but not women, because of some sort of man code.
A more plausible explanation: both men and women would be more deeply hurt by a friend cheating with their spouse than they would a stranger, because it would be two betrayals of promises for the price of one. The reason men are feeling more angry with the mayor than women is that men are more easily able to put themselves in the position of another man, and are projecting their feelings.
pre-relationshop-free era
The relationshop is where you take your wife to get the dents banged out of her.
Wow, I go off for a shower and a whole thread breaks loose. (Also, a comment of mine's been promoted! w00t!)
I was more curious about the "man code" thing -- whether there is, in fact, such a thing and whether a "man code" hammered out by Unfogged men would look at all like a man code articulated by the guys in the article. Now I'm wondering whether there can even be a Man Code that's not offensive in some patriarchal sort of way, and why the idea of a Man Code even comes into it.
Let's talk instead about why *men who aren't the ones betrayed* would be mad about it, which is what the piece is really about.
If it's true that women were more upset than men at Clinton, I'd guess that either gender tends to respond to the situation they find most personally threatening.
I think that what Newsom did was shitty, and if I were in a similar situation I'd more likely than not cut everyone off cold. But I also see a big distinction between "person in power who makes good policy decisions" and "person in power whose behavior in personal matters we should all emulate," so while I find this distateful, it wouldn't be something that would cause me to change my vote.
Oh shit, I really broke the ban with the monkeys, didn't I?
I don't know if I can really get by without human vs. animal behavior analogies.
76: I dispute that characterization of what I was saying.
78: Exactly. The article uses property-sounding language, and makes this big sexist claim about The Man Code. That's objectionable.
And the projection thing of course makes sense. Just as it makes sense that Cala, LB, and me, being women (and me being the one in the open marriage) would be more bothered by the property language than about the 'but his wife cheated!' thing.
81: I thought you were saying that humans *are* great apes, not that humans are analogous to great apes.
human vs. animal behavior analogies.
Human behavior *is* animal behavior, so I don't think that technically is an analogy.
During my quasi-marriage, when my quasi-wife cheated I wasn't upset (that was the rule, and I had no trouble following it), but I later concluded that I was supposed to be, and that in some way it was supposed to be a message to me. And that, in a sense, my lack of upsetness was a sign that I didn't care enough, and maybe it was.
What did upset me is that she came home six hours late without phoning.
83: The article is pretty awful, but most articles are. I guess I was mentally correcting for the inherent sexism in a random article, and trying to get at the root issue, not the reporter's sexist gloss.
84: Well, that's basically right; we both are monkeys and act like other monkeys.
I guess I don't completely understand the rules of the analogy ban.
If it's true that women were more upset than men at Clinton
A big if. I don't think any of the women here fall into that category.
81: Cerebrocrat, if your evo-psych stuff is meant to be explanatory, okay, ish; if it's meant to justify, then, well, ick.
Humans are pretty good apes, maybe better than average apes or even far bettter than average apes, but not really "great" yet. That's what Nietzsche is all about.
82: I was being sloppy, and I'm sure I did misrepresent you: sorry. But I think even a fair representation of our prior conversation leaves me saying the same thing -- while there's a crossover point where a romantic relationship almost certainly becomes more important than your friendships, I think that point is much later than you seemed to be visualizing.
88: We are not monkeys. We're apes.
A big if.
Among my friends, it's certainly true and by a big margin. Not that my friends are necessarily representative of anything, as they're almost all freaks.
I guess I don't completely understand the rules of the analogy ban.
Analogies are banned!
Does that help?
89: Evo-psych (*wince* I prefer, say "inferences from comparative models" or something...) is only ever good for explanation; justification is a whole different discussion.
A ban on analogies is basically like Goodwin's Law, except instead of just not comparing people to Nazis in order to illustrate their evilness, you can't compare anything to anything in order to make any point.
Prediction: baa will think this conversation is from Mars.
Mars is too close.
92: sigh I know. "Monkey," however, is more fun to say than "ape." Particularly in the context of comparisons to humans. Honestly, is it more fun to imagine your friends swinging through trees, screaming and throwing dung, or sitting on their butts picking nits? And I said more fun, not easier.
Oh, I refer to myself as a monkey all the time; I was just being pedantic for pedantry's sake. It's one of my favorite English words and (bonus!) I was born in the Year of the Monkey.
95: Except that Godwin's law is descriptive rather than proscriptive. (Or dictatorial, depending on how charitable you're feeling.)
92: Yeah, but you live in the south.
95: Not at all. I've come over to the analogy ban. It forces people to argue about the thing actually under discussion, instead of getting sidetracked onto issues like whether or not evo psych explanations for human behavior are evil (just for example).
"Analogies are banned!"
What would be an equivalent of that in another context?
100: "95: Except that Godwin's law is descriptive rather than proscriptive."
But Goodwin's Law is clearly different.
Someone recently said that the analogy ban is like King Canute trying to stop the incoming tide, and I agree.
Aw come on people, 95 was a joke.
You know, Canute gets a bad rap. He wasn't trying to stop the tide, just making the point that he couldn't do it. So it's a terrible analogy, and I think we should argue about it.
Except that King Canute was being descriptive, rather than proscriptive.
105: Nice, but wouldn't 2/5 of Ogged be more explicit? I wish I could make those things up.
I'm lost about the whole premise of this discussion and the article. Among the people I've encountered (and yesterday when I went out to lunch I heard no fewer than 7 snatches of conversation involving this!), the women and men seem equally shocked by this (including me), and equally irritated mostly b/c of the betrayal of the staffer. I've got to say this seems totally symmetric to me. If it was two guys and a woman or two women and a guy or three gays or three lesbians it wouldn't matter. I go to weddings and I see my role as a witness and a friend to recognize this promise and respect it and support it, even when its rough going and breakable, as much as I can and as much as reasonable. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's *half the point* of being a guest at a wedding----it's symbolic of your role as a friend in being supportive of relationship. And even if you aren't *at* the wedding--maybe these two got married before they knew the mayor--I think the essence of that aspect of friendship is still expected. I.e. if I'm having a rough spot in my relationship and me and my partner are having trouble maintaining fidelity to each other, for whatever private reasons, I expect my friends to try and support us--not make it worse by driving a nail between us and taking advantage of the situation. It's bad enough that the world is filled with thousands of people whom my partner could cheat on me with---but why does it have to be someone that I socialize with or work for? Why take a painful situation and drag it over into the other aspects of my life? The partner could have stopped this from happening, but maybe I am acquainted with and already working on dealing with all the reasons that didn't happen, but then to find out there was someone else I trusted and had affection for who also made a choice without consideration for my feelings---of course that's going to make things so much worse. And I have far less reason to try to forgive that person, and therefore the anger and betrayal will dominate.
I gotta say, I'm also slightly concerned this isn't really obvious to everyone.
And as a citizen I don't care at all about what a bad friend he is. But this clearly isn't going to make people eager to work for him and throw their whole lives into his causes and mission. So it doesn't speak too well to his ability as a leader. And the fact is up till now much of his credibility as a leader has been built on personal charisma and the enthusiasm of the people who were loyal to him. So that, I think, is why people care.
Man, and I apologize for my heteronormative diction. two straight guys and a straight woman, two straight women and a straight guy.
108: Of course, but it was easy enough as is given the "straight" clue, and "part" sounded a bit dirtier. I guess "Ogged's part" would have been even dirtier and er... harder.
was more curious about the "man code" thing -- whether there is, in fact, such a thing and whether a "man code" hammered out by Unfogged men would look at all like a man code articulated by the guys in the article
Probably. It would also look a lot like a Woman Code hammered out by the women here. I have always understood that if Woman A tells Woman B, a friend, that she's interested in Guy X, and Woman B then makes a play for Guy X, Woman B is probably sort of a bitch. The Newsome thing seems of the same species.
111: If people were saying that instead of some nonsense about "the man code," I wouldn't be arguing with it.
There's a difference between two people, both single, making a play for the same person--who is *not involved with either of them*, and therefore feeling annoyed at the competition rather than the object of lust, and the cheating spouse scenario.
116: Which is to say that apparently you don't agree with this part of what Ile wrote: "The partner could have stopped this from happening, but maybe I am acquainted with and already working on dealing with all the reasons that didn't happen,"
I have always understood that if Woman A tells Woman B, a friend, that she's interested in Guy X, and Woman B then makes a play for Guy X, Woman B is probably sort of a bitch.
This is a complex and fraught situation, and one which back in my dating life tended to make me flee, but came up often enough to be annoying. But the rule as stated is kind of a lousy rule, as establishing property rights over someone before they've bought into the idea. And it can lead to icky situations where six months later, Woman B (who behaved well under this rule) and Guy X, who is now dating Woman A, discover that he's only dating Woman A because he thought Woman B was uninterested. Really, not a good rule.
118: It's not a property right issue; it's a freedom to communicate information to friends issue. I wouldn't want to not be able to tell a friend about a great job opportunity that I'm about to get for fear that he'll try to get the job, too.
See, this is why having friends is overrated.
120: Not actually hypothetical, but I was neither Woman A or Woman B.
119: When I've seen this happen, it was in the context of Guy X known to both A and B. Not information sharing so much as calling dibs.
119: If your friend is so competitive that they're going to go after a job or someone you're interested in *just because you want it*, then dump the friend. But if you and a good friend are in the same field, and you hear about a good job, and you don't tell them just b/c you don't want the competition, then I'd say your friend should dump you.
LB is has it right in 118. The idea that women should be able to call "dibs" on a crush IME comes out of middle school social norms that shouldn't be reinforced in adulthood. It can lead to all sorts of undesirable outcomes.
119: When I've seen this happen, it was in the context of Guy X known to both A and B. Not information sharing so much as calling dibs.
I was thinking of the other case. Consider the description so modified. It does make me wonder why women think of men as property.
121: No. Calling minor acquaintances or people you don't really like "friends" is what's overrated.
125: Because some women are stupid assholes.
See how easy that was?
But without minor acquaintances I would have no friends at all!
125: Because some women are stupid assholes
Same with men. We're all post-feminism now!
Then why do you insist on defending the feelings of stupid assholes?
Because I don't think this was a case of that. The reason one guy used a property reference is that it's hard to come up with analogies to describe that sort of violation of trust. He reached for something and took what was available; it had unfortunate implications. (Cf. Biden.) On the whole, I found the article weird b/c for seeing anything weird about it. The whole think has been explained away in this thread pretty straightforwardly. (And probably best by Ile.)
"Then why do you insist on defending the feelings of stupid assholes?"
Yeah, isn't that like King Canute?
130: I'd say, rather, that though the speaker probably didn't mean to imply that wives are property, the analogy he felt best described his feelings demonstrated that, on some level, that is part of why this specific instance bothers people.
Keep in mind as well that Rippey-Tourk told her husband about the affair as part of an AA-style program that required apologizing to people for past misbehavior. The affair presumably took place while R-T had substance-abuse problems and was maybe having trouble making good choices. So it's reasonable to place a burden on Newsom, as a sober person, to make responsible choices when his friend's wife isn't able to. He doesn't have the excuse of addiction that she had. (Not that addiction excuses misbehavior, but you know what I mean.) To the degree that this is an addiction issue, it's not a gendered issue - the responsibilities would be the same were the genders reversed.
I totally agree with B. If King Canute hadn't cheated on his wife with an analogy, he wouldn't be an anti-semite. But since he did, he's a stupid asshole. Fucker.
m, also, Ogged is just mad because that other didn't cheat with HIM
i know this has probably been long resolved, but, before I read any further:
(from 10)Your friend didn't make promises to you; your partner did.
Quit trolling us humans, B.
i'm not sure how well i followed this thread; u ppl r frm Mars or something.
A cpl points I didn't see made (which isn't to say they weren't made)A) The only reason this was referred to as a "man code" was b/c the writer wanted to reference the beer commerical for whatever reason. Maybe he thought it made his lede sexier. I don't think there's anything deeper to it than that. B) People are mad at the mayor more than the wife b/c they voted for the mayor. Is there anything to it more than this? I don't see anyone making comparative moral judgements about which betraying party was worse.
blah blah blah. I am not reading the whole of this thread because it is bound to be full of Yanks making ever-so-precious distinctions based on their undergraduate philosophy degrees. All I will say is that while the bonds of friendship would normally prevent one from making a move on the wife of a pal, if any of my mates even implied the existence of something like "THE MAN CODE", I would mark him down as a cunt and make a mental note to sleep with his wife on the first opportunity.
I would mark him down as a cunt and make a mental note to sleep with his wife on the first opportunity.
No sacrifice is too great when principle is at stake, Paddy.
Gloria Vanderbilt has said that Paddy is an appropriate slur because of the nursery rhyme, even though it's somewhat obsolete.
As usual, dsquared cuts to the quick.
Since when is Gloria Vanderbilt an authority on the propriety of slurs?
Actually, Google says it's Taffy 100-1. My apologies to Mr. Davies and his lovely family back to the third generation.
As usual, I am deeply in love with dsquared.
People are mad at the mayor more than the wife b/c they voted for the mayor
This is a good and valid argument. It's nothing much to do with the article, however.
Paddy is an appropriate slur because of the nursery rhyme
Wait, what? This is from memory:
Taffy was a Welchman,
Taffy was a thief,
Taffy came to my house,
And stole a leg of beef.
I don't know why my children's nursey-rhyme book had racist poetry in it, so charmingly illustrated, but there indeed it was, and we all thought it was hilarious as kids.
Yeah, when I used to read Richard Scarry's Mother Goose to PK, I would just say that Taffy was a Bad Man.
Of course, in twenty years, he's going to use the word "taffy" to mean "bad person," and then get in an argument about whether or not he's perpetuating anti-Welsh stereotypes. I'll just say for the record that he will, in fact, be doing so, even if he isn't aware. Sorry, kid.
My memories come from one of Wallace Tripp's books. Either this one or the one charmingly titled A great big ugly man came up and tied his horse to me. I'm sad to see that the best ones are out of print now.
A great big ugly man came up and tied his horse to me.
So awesome. I treasure my copy.
148: No one will remember in 20 years that 'Taffy' is about the Welsh. I don't think I realized it must have been a slur until about two minutes ago.
Was it a jump rope rhyme for you, JM?
137: That's M. Phil. to you.
While I might normally buy the "who cares who the mayor fucks" line of reasoning, the guy whose wife got involved was presumably of value to the city government, and in fact was apparently behind some new program or other. He is now no longer working for the city government, and presumably it will also be somewhat harder to get people to work in high-level roles in the city.
Yeah, and he'll probably hire the guy with the hottest wife.
137: Isn't it nice to come from an intellectual culture that values empiricism?
19, 152: I'm annoyed with Newsom with this because it does speak to his judgement, to his priorities, to his motivations in running for Mayor in the first place.
Back during the Lewinsky scandal, my wife was of the opinion that Clinton's sex life wasn't relevant to his job performance; I couldn't see how the leader of the free world could possibly have enough spare time to be chasing tail.
The Welsh are savages. I learned that from the Internet.
I think men use property language because using more emotionally honest language would make them feel vulnurable and unmanly. There isn't a man alive who would feel having his wife cheat on him with his boss as being like having his boss steal his property. I think this is the point of SCMT and others: whatever language they use, it's clear what they really mean.
At the same time, the effect of property language cannot be neutral. If the only category of analysis that men have for their relationships with women is a property-based one, then they will begin to think of them as property. So B et al also have a point.
I'm skeptical that there's anyone who would truly be more mad at the friend than the spouse; rather, the friend is a safer target for the anger.
"I couldn't see how the leader of the free world could possibly have enough spare time to be chasing tail."
I don't mean to shock you, but Presidents are also known to watch movies, take vacations, read books, and otherwise relax and entertain themselves from time to time.
I do hope anyone who was convinced that, say, Ronald Reagan kept his nose to the grindstone 18 hours a day, doing work, work, work, isn't too distressed to learn this.
Hmm. Would I think less of Reagan if it came out that he was banging Barbara Bush? I honestly can't say.
I couldn't see how the leader of the free world could possibly have enough spare time to be chasing tail.
The joy of being the leader of the free world is that you don't have to chase much.