|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the movie "Fatal Attraction", Michael Douglas & Glenn Close have already done this one, the classic. And Close got almost too close.
Close began to threaten his home & family & life. Note that Close seduced the married man.
This no doubt happens a hundred times for each case which becomes public. Most are probably successful, in the woman getting what she wants; then either throwing away her conquest, or else taking it all the way to breaking up a marriage (sometimes hers)& marrying the victim.
Both the above happened to a man friend (a bud ever since the first grade). "Both" meaning, his wife went after breaking up a fellow attorney's family in the firm they worked for, then that assured, she broke up her marriage with my friend & married the fellow lawyer.
Her motive? You judge this female lawyer. Her law firm associate & new hubby is the scion & head of one of the most powerful legal firms internationally. I judge, the obvious: power, status, & money. Plus some exciting new sex thrown in for her fringe benefits after years of a marriage grown less than exciting & much routine.
Well, as least she doesn't cum cheap. sells high in stooping low. Totally, coldly manipulative. Do not believe the American myth, "Sugar and spice and everything nice."
Sometimes, the first better thing that comes along, and she's gone.
This bud is known as a caretaker, a professor, put her through law school, even shared in the housework.
He is a Good Guy. I am not. The latter is my recommendation.
-------------------------------------
BTW, if you rent the "Fatal" movie, be aware that there are two versions. One is a special "director's series" edition, featuring the director's ORIGINAL, controversial ending.
=========================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""Close began to threaten his home & family & life. Note that Close seduced the married man.""
Note, too, that the married man cheated on his wife.
Not that the family deserved the bunny boiling and stalking that came later.
I have witnessed some pretty crazy scenarios wherein a girl who is after an ex (or even just someone not interestd in her) will call him a million times a day, show up at his work, threaten his girlfriends, etc. Thus far no fatalities but still "the woman scorned" is a scary creature.
A mistake one man friend I know made, was the one Michael Douglas made - sleeping with his stalker. It was like Pavlov's dogs - he gave in to her advances, thus feeding her fantasy that he might actually be interested and she would step up the stalking. I advise against this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have witnessed some pretty crazy scenarios wherein a girl who is after an ex (or even just someone not interestd in her) will call him a million times a day, show up at his work, threaten his girlfriends, etc. Thus far no fatalities but still "the woman scorned" is a scary creature.
I really hate this victimology/victocrat crap. However, if I take the criteria that women use to claim stalking and use the role reversal test, I can only conclude that I have been a victim of stalking on two distinct occasions.
The first occasion, was due to repeated phone calls from my ex-wife to places of employment. She was told not to make the calls on several occasions and yet continued. Further, she would make the calls to various supervisors and show up at work to try and attack me professionally. It was hell and damaged me professionally because I would always be assumed guilty when my ex-wife made an allegation.
The second incident, was from an angry ex-girlfriend. She began threatening me when I learned that she was little more than a con-artist and dropped her. I deduced that she was trying to con me out of several thousand dollars.
When I broke off the contact, I also got several unwelcome phone calls at work from her, and she even searched out my ex-wife and made false allegations in a child custody dispute. Her false allegations are a matter of legal record.
However, we all know that when a woman makes an allegation against a man that the male is guilty. That hostile testimony was in part responsible for my son remaining in an abusive situation for several years. The other half was psychologist doing their evaluations and failing to recognize that he was being sexually abused.
In retrospect, I would have loved to use the anti-stalking laws to prosecute these two woman. But then, men cannot be stalked...can they? Can they!?!? God I hate victimonlogy. It almost always works against the men and in favor of the women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men CAN be stalked, and women have been successfully prosecuted for it. (Run a search on "David Letterman" and "stalking", and you'll see.) I don't know that you could charge them now, too much time may have elapsed since your stalking incidents occurred, but if it should occur again report it as soon as possible and you'd likely have a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Note, too, that the married man cheated on his wife."
See, WSP, the thing that annoys me just a little here is that it is WELL known and well repeated by every movie reviewer that ever looked at this film that the Douglas character cheated on his wife.
I find your insistence on reminding us of the obvious to be the same tactic every woman uses when a man points out an infraction of the "rules" by a woman.
With all due respect, we don't need to be reminded of this. What needs to be pointed out, because almost every woman, regardless of her stance on feminism, chooses to be oblivious to such sinfulness, is when women commit a sin that they expect society to overlook.
That the Douglas character was adulterous was vastly repeated. That the Close character preyed upon an obviously weak marriage is a sin that gets largely ignored AND SHOULD NOT BE.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selective cutting and pasting on your part. You left out the part where I said that the man and his family did not deserve what the Glenn Close character did to them. Anyway, there was no indication that the marriage was weak until he cheated on his wife.
Stalking is pretty bad and mayhaps be indeed a sin. But a person who cheats on their spouse has himself or herself to blame. "But she (or he) seduced me!" is not a valid excuse for marital infidelity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""But she (or he) seduced me!" is not a valid excuse for marital infidelity."
More selective cutting and pasting, WSP. (And I DID read an recognize your assertion about what Douglas, et al, suffered.)
On the one hand, you are right. Infidelity is infidelity, no matter who originates it.
But clearly there are women who are predators, just like the stewardess who earned $75,000 (I think that was the amount) by seducing Frank Gifford. Frank and Kathy Lee have this problem to deal with and I have no idea how they're dealing with it privately.
But just because it's not a justification for infidelity does not mean that the woman (in this case) is any less sinful. I hate to use the "C" word again, but it is regarded as chivalry among men to stay away from your buddy's wife, not for her sake but for his.
Because men are (or used to be, anyway) more easily seduced, the seductress usually gets a pass when it comes to culpability. But if a woman seduces, or attempts to seduce, a married man then she is no less sinful than than the filanderer. Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy are no less guilty than Bill Clinton and Gary Condit. These women KNEW that their targets were married and pursued anyway.
The men in these cases are guilty, but so are the women, and my complaint is simply that society has let them get away with it, and they should NOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that women can be predators. I agree that they are capable of infidelity, and of being the cause of infidelity. I disagree that men are "more easily seduced." Having been "seduced" did not make Michael Douglas a victim, it made him a jerk. Being stalked made him the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Being stalked made him the victim."
Ya know, you could have saved a few raised hackles by stating that in your initial post. It's not something that goes without saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The initial post references the previous poster's line "Note that Close seduces the married man." As if the married man could not possibly have resisted her or something. Erasing his culpability for the affair - poor thing, she seduced him.
Except in the case of perhaps a virginal high school student paired with an aggressive and more experienced adult, I believe seduction is an antiquated notion. A grown married man with a child is not seduced, he is a willing participant in an extramarital affair.
I went on to say that he and his family don't deserve the bunny boiling. Read: he becomes the victim. I guess I have to spell these things out more clearly or else risk being intentionally misunderstood so somebody can decide I'm a feminist or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I went on to say that he and his family don't deserve the bunny boiling. Read: he becomes the victim.
Actually, you said, "Not that the family deserved the bunny boiling and stalking that came later." It's not a a big leap to assume you meant his family didn't deserve what he brought down on them through his actions. You were unclear.
"I guess I have to spell these things out more clearly or else risk being intentionally misunderstood so somebody can decide I'm a feminist or something."
Exactimundo! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps so. I was thinking of "family" as all inclusive. Others may not have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, WSP. I guess you touched a sensitive spot, albeit unintentionally.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, WSP. I guess you touched a sensitive spot, albeit unintentionally.
Frank
No, Frank, you were dead right. Point out a hundred examples of inequities in the law, and out sytelth pheminist will pull out one contrary example, whine, "Men Too! And it's worse for Women! Women are vitims!" and immediately...
(And it damn sure implies it)
...Under the bullsh!t rubric about "Not making it a Gender but a human issue" she starts putting women at the center of the drama and using shaming language to marginalize men.
You were dead right to call her on it, and you should stick to your guns.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno, Gonzo. I guess I think WSP gets my point, whether or not she agrees. And I saw no reason to beat the topic to death. I tend to relent when there is little real chance of over-running the opposition, mostly in the interest of intelligent discourse the next time around. And I do regard the fact that WSP, Lorianne, and other women show up here regularly with a measure of support. I know, as I'm sure you do, that the feminists didn't get where they are without the support of (foolhardy) men, and I don't expect we'll get very far in reconciling gender "equality" without the help of women, at least in the political sense.
But thanks for your support, though. It is duly noted and much appreciated.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, we don't need to be reminded of this. What needs to be pointed out, because almost every woman, regardless of her stance on feminism, chooses to be oblivious to such sinfulness, is when women commit a sin that they expect society to overlook.
Well said, Frank.
Wiccid, one mistake some women make when they post to this forum is that they assume when we point out a woman's flaws that we are laying blame on all women, or that we are ignoring men's flaws over those of women. On my part, anyway, this is not the case. What we *are* doing is pointing out the injustices and inequalities in a society which favors women over men in any number of ways. This is a valid pursuit.
Here, as anywhere else, you are going to find some who do want to point fingers and lay blame, but, honestly, Frank is absolutely correct when he says we "don't need to be reminded of the obvious."
This is not an attack on you, personally. The longtime regulars here have experienced posts like yours from numerous women who have visited our site, and I feel it's largely because they make assumptions that men are here to whine about women. That's certainly not my purpose. I'm here because I want to draw an arrow to the inequalities, so we can do something about them. I focus on the inequalities men suffer because there are so few voices for men out there right now. Women have plenty of voices, and women are much more likely to be heard these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't trying to say anything about men in general or women or general.
I was merely making the point that a person who is unfaithful to a spouse is absurd to blame the person with whom they cheated, rather than accepting responsibility for their own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 18, @06:38PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know that you could charge them now, too much time may have elapsed since your stalking incidents occurred, but if it should occur again report it as soon as possible and you'd likely have a case.
I should point out that my only option was to hire a lawyer and obtain a no contact order. That stopped the undesired contact from the ex-wife. It took almost 10 years to gather sufficient evidence and witnesses to be taken seriously. I finally had an employer that recognized what was happening and they backed me.
Unfortunately, it was ineffective in undoing the damage from the false allegations and lies. In the end, the real victim was my son.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men CAN be stalked, and women have been successfully prosecuted for it. (Run a search on "David Letterman" and "stalking", and you'll see.) I don't know that you could charge them now, too much time may have elapsed since your stalking incidents occurred, but if it should occur again report it as soon as possible and you'd likely have a case.
Here you go again, and soon you'll whine about being called a pheminist soon, no doubt.
Whoop-de-footy-do. A celebrity was able to make A case against an isolated and obvious nutcase with a history of near psychotic behavior. So all is friggin' lovely with the world, sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows, and Scott can take down the site, AUM can go offline, and Warren Farrell, Jimmy Hanback, Stu Miller, Jim Sacks, and all the rest of us can go looking for another hobby tomorrow.
What a load of crap.
It takes any man to be twice as harassed to be taken half as seriously as any woman. Any, I repeat, ANY woman except for the most drooling out of touch skitzo can have any man stopped, harassed, and quite probably jailed on her say-so alone in damn near any jurisdiction in this pheminazi police state we call the US of A. Lock 'em up first because some woman claims to feel threatened, and investigate later. Then, even if they do find out that it's bogus, is there anything ever done - like charging the c**t with filing a false report, perjury, or something?
No.
Not just no, but Hell No.
Not just hell no, but HELL F**KING NO.
Why? Becawse it will offend de sensebiwities of de poor, poor, oppwessed National Organization of Wimmyn. And whoever the man-hating dyke in charge is will hold a pwess confwence and be OUTWAGED!
So just can the (poorly) veiled pheminist apologetics already, come out of the closet, and fess up.
Jesus Heironymius Christ in a bucket.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meow, Mr. Catty. I was trying to offer up evidence that men can be stalked and if he is being stalked, could seek legal assistance to get it stopped. But if you'd rather a man think he can not get help, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 18, @01:26PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
i never really questioned that one because it's happened to me twice. that's not a fun experience, believe you me.
brad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never really questioned that one because it's happened to me twice. that's not a fun experience, believe you me.
I imagine not, Brad. And I feel for you. When I was a police reporter, I had a couple of people who were pissed because their names were in the paper stalk me. Since then, I've learned to see the signs in some people, even here on the Net.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
