So This Happened…

Steve  shared a link.
Friday
Not that we didn’t already know that fox news lord murdoch and crew were feminist liberal homosexuals in disguise. Truth.
  • Laura Are you speaking tongue in cheek. If not, I am not understanding your point.
    Friday at 8:23pm · Like
  • Steve Nope, not tongue in cheek, Laura. I celebrate women, just not feminist.
    Friday at 8:42pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Steve Fox is by no means immune…
    Friday at 8:43pm via mobile · Like
  • Laura No, of course Fox is not immune. However, I’m not sure who you were referring to as feminist in that segment. If you’re referring to Megyn Kelly, I disagree…and so does she. She explicitly stated that she is not a feminist, but she IS a working mom, and she was taking exception to the generalization that kids of working moms are more prone to have problems.
    Friday at 8:45pm · Like
  • Steve Not referring to her, Laura. Tammy works too. Wish she did not have to.
    Friday at 8:47pm via mobile · Like
  • Laura Then I am mystified by the comment, as it seems to bear no relation to the attached debate.
    Friday at 8:54pm · Like
  • Steve With that said, do you believe her making mention of homosexual parents study that they are as “well adjusted” as those of heterosexual couples ?
    Friday at 8:54pm via mobile · Like
  • Steve Pure liberal myth is what it is.
    Friday at 8:56pm via mobile · Like · 3
  • Steve Of course I’m judging her comments biblically.
    Friday at 8:57pm via mobile · Like
  • Todd Whether Kelly agrees or not, her view (because of her personal choices) is to take the politically driven American Psych Assoc. analysis which is the feminist mindset on roles. Women also drive wages down in the workplace so that many see it as necessary to have double incomes. You hardly need data to tell you that children don’t fare well without a homemaker, at least I don’t. If they’re going to make the argument subjective then two can play that game.
    Friday at 8:59pm · Like · 1
  • Cado just bc megyn kelly says shes not a feminist does not mean she is not one. her husband writes story books while she communicates to the nation. she quotes columbia university and every other liberal pseudo think tank. why the hell is she a “working mom” when she doesnt need to be one?
    Friday at 9:07pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Todd I like a woman who can spar wittily but she strikes me as sassy and unfeminine. What kind of man would this attract? is always a question I reserve the right to ask.
    Friday at 9:04pm · Like · 2
  • Cado she divorced her husband in 2008 to marry a story book writer. she cohabited with her first husband before marriage and says its not a sin. her second marriage was officiated by a female pastor. what does that tell you about her?
    Friday at 9:09pm · Like · 1
  • Laura I do believe that the study indicated exactly what she stated. No, I do not agree with the premise of the study. She was debating scientific research with scientific research, and I believe she was taking exception because she is a working mother, and that was one of the groups he targeted. It doesn’t mean the scientific research is biblical, but it wasn’t inappropriate in a debate setting to bring it up, particularly since she was seeking to dispute a point.

    Listen, I’m a stay-at-home mom. I chose that, and I think that, generally speaking, having a parent at home is best for kids, especially when they’re little. However, I am not casting aspersions on women who work, because I have seen situations where, whether or not the woman “needed” to work for financial reasons, there are some who need to for other reasons. There are days like today when I was at the end of my rope (and I only have ONE kid), and i know it would have been easier to be at work today.

    I thought the debate interesting. I thought your comments were unnecessarily abrasive. IMO, there isn’t any reason to be crude & snarky if you believe your positions to be true and valid. That’s all.
    Friday at 9:09pm · Like
  • Todd She was railing against men who also were not casting aspersions on women who must work and said so, so what exactly was she on about? What one is not allowed to say in NetworkLand is that anything moderns wish to do is not ideal and that it brings a decline of various sorts. That is ridiculous and I will never comply. I thought the men were honest, forthcoming, correct and not harsh in the least and though there are tons of feminists applauding Kelly, I could not find one column for the other view (I didn’t check the Old White Thugs Review however). Proof enough that it is feminism that we are witnessing here. She also wanted it to be an ad hominem or subjective argument, repleat with emotionalism. But then, apparently she is pregnant.
    Friday at 9:40pm · Like · 1
  • Todd The men also allowed that the difference in quality wained as incomes grew into the highest brackets, probably where there are so many services available at home Mom becomes simply a figure expected if not endeared. Kelly would fall into this circumstance with her income. So she’s not just fighting this for her own circumstance but for others who will suffer, sometimes terribly. This is just willful and stupid.
    Friday at 9:46pm · Like · 1
  • Eric Right on the money, Steve. Rupert Murdoch = Jew. If you want pagan, liberal ideas wrapped up in a conservative-looking package, he’ll be happy to sell it to you all day long.

    Megyn Kelly is a major feminist, as this video demonstrates. There’s nothing more backwards than watching a boisterous woman lecture two men in public about right and wrong. Even if she were on the correct side of the argument (and she’s not), that’s bass ackwards. What’s even more disgusting is that they both back down to her. The first thing out of Erickson’s mouth should have been, “Watch your attitude. If you can’t speak to me in a respectful tone, this conversation is over.”
    Friday at 10:02pm · Like · 2
  • Laura A boisterous woman?? Backwards?? Disgusting that they back down to her?? (They didn’t, by the way…they chose not to fight with her.) Should I then infer that it is PROPER for a man to lecture a woman in public about right & wrong? Holy cow! And NO, they should not have responded with “watch your attitude.” Nothing more off-putting in the world than a man who is condescending to women, and who treats them as his subordinates.
    Friday at 10:11pm · Edited · Like
  • Eric <Laura>Should I then infer that it is PROPER for a man to lecture a woman in public about right & wrong?</Laura>

    Yes. That is the biblical model. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. Man is the head of woman.

    “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
    Friday at 10:17pm · Like · 2
  • Laura 1) Adam was no less deceived than Eve. Regardless of who the vessel was that perpetrated the deceit, the Devil deceived them both. They both fell. They were both in transgression.

    2) Should my husband publicly lecture me or otherwise humiliate me in front of others, I can assure you that would not bode well for our relationship. There is a way to teach, and a way not to, and you’re implying that excoriation and embarrassment are acceptable.

    3) Yes, God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of the church. However, when man & woman were created, woman was created as a helpmate, not as an authority over man or to be crushed under his heel. We were created to be partners. There are certainly gender specific roles for men and women, but there is an implication in your words that suggests a more master/servant relationship. That does not cut it for me. Sorry.
    Friday at 10:31pm · Like
  • Laura Respect goes both ways in relationships, and it does not improve things to be disrespectful, regardless of whether or not the other party has been. What you suggested as an appropriate response to Megyn Kelly in that debate was, in fact, quite rude and disrespectful, even if you believe it was a proper response. There was no reason to embarrass her on the air, and by doing so, digging himself into a pit because of his caustic response. If she was disrespectful – and I’m not conceding she was – let her stand alone on that.
    Friday at 10:36pm · Like
  • Kent I couldn’t listen past 2:14. I pray with my daughter every night that she will become a Beautiful Mommy someday. That is my dream and prayer for her: A beautiful Mommy who lovingly submits to her husband, cherishes her children for who God is making them into, faithfully manages the home, implementing the family vision of her husband.
    Friday at 10:43pm · Like · 1
  • Laura Why not a shared family vision? If they are true partners, then shouldn’t they share in those dreams and decisions? What about a beautiful woman, who follows faithfully God’s plan for her, regardless of what it entails? That, by the way, is my prayer for my children. And my husband is the one who pointed out that, without a shared vision for our future, there’s not much gettin’ done.
    Friday at 10:48pm · Like
  • Eric <Laura>Adam was no less deceived than Eve</Laura>

    Given that you deny male headship, it’s not surprising that you also deny the authority of Christ and His Word. Adam was not deceived. His sin, interestingly enough, was submitting to female ideas about right and wrong. If he had done his job, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

    <Laura>Should my husband publicly lecture me or otherwise humiliate me in front of others, I can assure you that would not bode well for our relationship.… you’re implying that excoriation and embarrassment are acceptable.</Laura>

    No. I did not say that you should be publicly humiliated or embarrassed (unless you publicly feminize like Megyn Kelly, in which case, yes). A pastor lectures his female congregants during his sermon, but there’s nothing humiliating about that.

    <Laura>there is an implication in your words that suggests a more master/servant relationship.</Laura>

    Those weren’t my words. Those were God’s words. “As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
    Friday at 10:53pm · Like · 1
  • Kent It’s a given that it is a shared family vision, husband and wife working together in one mind, fighting tooth and nail to raise their covenant seed in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. as to your comment about the beautiful woman following God’s plan for her life: This is God’s plan. The normative role in Scripture for women is to marry and to be that glorious helpmeet and Proverbs 31 wife/woman, which we husbands so desperately need. If she desires something other than this, then I would say that she is out of accord with God’s will, generally speaking. Just because right now, our society is so backwards, doesn’t mean that as Christians we just give in. Rather as the Psalmist says: “When the foundations have been destroyed, what must the righteous do?” The answer is clearly to: Build them up again! May God restore to the greater Christian subculture this glorious view of Biblical femininity.
    Friday at 10:57pm · Like · 3
  • Eric <Laura>What you suggested as an appropriate response to Megyn Kelly in that debate was, in fact, quite rude and disrespectful</Laura>

    It’s rude and disrespectful for me to say, “Watch your attitude.” But it’s totally fine for Megyn Kelly to wag her head and scoff and disrespectfully say, “Who died and made you scientist in chief?” If I ever heard *my* wife or *my* daughters speak that way to any man, in public or private, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    Friday at 11:00pm · Like · 3
  • Laura So explain that to the Christian women who are single adults, particularly those who are not single by choice. Clearly God has a plan for them, and is using them in some way. You aren’t implying that they are out of accord with God’s plan, which is why they’re still single?
    Friday at 11:00pm · Like
  • Laura Eric, in that forum there was NO WAY for those two men to do other than what they did without speaking in an ugly way. Perhaps she crossed the line with some of her comments. She was more antagonistic than I would have been, but I don’t think she was wrong to defend working mothers, being that she is one. The forum was debate, and it would have been stupid for her not to participate, seeing how that’s part of her job.
    Friday at 11:04pm · Like
  • Kent I did purposely use the phrase “generally speaking.” But that is just a straw man type of argument you have used. Remember: We cannot let the exceptions become the rule. There are plenty of single Christian women who could have been married long ago if they had not bought into all the deceitful lies of feminism, which have destroyed femininity and the families in the Church. Also, I will wholeheartedly grant you the dearth of eligible Christian young men with the type of vision I am speaking of, but they are out there and increasingly more so thanks to the ever growing Christian homeschool movement. May my sons grow up to be this kind of man. worthy of marrying that type of woman.
    Friday at 11:11pm · Like · 3
  • Eric <Laura>in that forum there was NO WAY for those two men to do other than what they did without speaking in an ugly way</Laura>

    Exactly my point. She was out of line publicly. She deserved to reprimanded publicly. Instead, millions of viewers observed a masculine female stomp on two effeminate males with no consequences.

    <Laura>I don’t think she was wrong to defend working mothers</Laura>

    I have some sympathy for working mothers if they are single and have no other way to feed their children, or if their husband is somehow incapacitated. Megyn Kelly is not one of those, nor is that the type of working that she was defending. She’s a classic feminist. Here is the exact wording of her objection to Erickson: “You believe that women who choose to work instead of staying at home to nurture their children, and instead have the father do that, are imposing a worse future on their children than women who make a different choice.”

    <Laura>The forum was debate, and it would have been stupid for her not to participate, seeing how that’s part of her job.</Laura>

    That’s not a legitimate job for a woman, especially a woman who has two small children and one on the way. She should be at home playing legos with her boys and teaching them how to read, rather than farming them out to a daycare operation while she goes out and conquers men. Anyway, I do understand your point that it was a debate. She easily could have engaged in the discussion without being a brawling and contentious woman. If a man had said the same things she said, it would not have been offensive in terms of feminism, but it still would have been poor journalism. Personally, I can’t stand to listen to Megyn Kelly even when she’s doing a monolog and I’m in agreement with what she’s saying.
    Friday at 11:50pm · Like · 2
  • Todd Well, bless my soul, here’s a bunch of Christian men who wouldn’t have one of the Fox feminist hotties for all the tea/koolaid in China. It’s cultural Marxism any way you slice it, along with Neocon warmongering. No thank you, ma’am. Here a page of Fox skirts rising in direct relation to their ratings.
    Saturday at 7:10am · Like · 3
  • Steve There is a HUGE difference in thinking Biblically vs. thinking Conservatively. I repent of my conservatism where it is not Biblical. I have much ground to recover.
    Saturday at 7:55am · Edited · Like · 4
  • Eric “It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.”
    —R.L. Dabney
    Saturday at 9:25am · Like · 2
  • Todd http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fox-news-anchor-babes-short-skirts-video-photo

    Fox Women TV Anchor Babes’ Skirts are Rising: Fox News Babes the best Fox News Legs

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com

    Fox Women Anchors, hottest TV anchor babes, showing off their Fox News legs. FoxSee More
    Saturday at 10:54am · Like · 1
  • Kent Great Dabney quote!
    Saturday at 11:02am via mobile · Like · 2
  • Todd Thanks Eric…I had Dabney in mind but didn’t have time to look up his prophecy! Shared
    Saturday at 11:04am · Edited · Like · 3
  • Todd The difficulty I have even conversing with Laura (it seems she carries her maiden name into marriage) – and the millions of professing conservatives with this frame of mind – is that her protests against men who rule over their women presuppose that all men are faulty and therefore unworthy to address a woman on these matters with any kind of more-than-equal authority. A wise woman must first choose a man who she would trust and want to be a man to her. I think the modern woman wants to choose a mate on some other basis than deep wisdom and then covers the less than wise move with “we have an equal partnership”. The reason you have an equal partnership is because an unwise woman chose an unwise and untrustworthy man. As far as I’m concerned, after that these people are all on their own in uncharted waters in a ship of fools. Hope they make lots of money to make up for the satisfaction of deep joy in a Christ-founded marriage.
    Saturday at 2:47pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Kent Hewett, Todd, in fairness to Laura, if you don’t know her…. Many women on Facebook use their maiden name so people who knew them before they were married kind find them… My wife does this too.
    Saturday at 6:42pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Kent Meant “hey” not “hewett”
    Saturday at 7:13pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Kent And “can” not “kind”.Ugh!
    Saturday at 7:13pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Todd OK, good Kent, and I don’t know her so I hope she perceives I’m a gentleman. It’s fine for women to have two men’s names instead of just one. There’s plenty substantive in what I have to say on this subject for Laura to despise legitimately without heaping reprobation on her for wearing two names, whatever the reason. I don’t say these things because I’m an evil man or that I don’t like you Laura. When I visit my parents it’s Fox for hours and I tell my mother that she needs to put it in critcal gear while she’s got that in her environment – it has some elements of conservancy but mostly it’s neoconservative, worldly, big government, irreligious or worse, heretical opinion. So that eventually someone comes along who says somethng that’s true like the men above and now it all sounds so radical and unreasonable in the context of the absolute rot that you’ve taken exposure to and been told it is the only reasonable course. This is how cultural battles are won. It’s insidious and dissembling. And very well meaning folks are thus converted over time. Please consider our advice sister Laura.
    23 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • Laura For the record, I did carry my maiden name into my marriage as my middle name. I hated my original middle name, and there was no question when I married my husband (a man quite worthy of my trust, btw) that I would drop my middle name. He is not threatened by that, and should not be. I do not hyphenate, and have no interest in being anyone other than his missus. And yes, I use both names on FB for the very reason Kent stated.

    I do not know why I felt the need to share this, except that the conversation has gone on with me as part of the subject, so I thought I would set the record straight.

    Also for the record, please do not assume that I get my news solely or primarily from Fox. I was speaking to Steve regarding this particular video, not Fox news in general. I am not a neoconservative or a pseudo-conservative, or whatever other term you would use. I am not a feminist, and have never been, but I take HUGE issue with the statement that Megyn Kelly’s job (or whatever job in whatever field) is an illegitimate job for a woman. What century are you living in?? I suppose that Deborah (the OT prophet), Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Condoleezza Rice, Mother Theresa, Queen Noor, Queens Victoria & Elizabeth, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Angela Merkel, Karen Hughes, Joan of Arc, and myriad others (these are just off the top of my head) are not legitimate jobs for women because they are in positions of power over men, and are able to (by virtue of their position) lecture men on right and wrong. Y’all got some ‘splainin’ to do.

    I also take exception to the statement that I raised a straw man issue with regard to single Christian woman of marrying age. To assume that they are buying into deceitful feminist ideals as the reason that they are not married is presumptuous in the extreme. I was a single Christian woman for a long time (I married at 34), and I can tell you that it WAS NOT due to my feminist ideas. As if! The dearth of worthy men was a definite factor, but also a factor was that I decided to be content with my life and look forward to whatever God had in store for me, marriage or not. I know a number of single women, spanning a range of decades, and I can tell you that none of them have their heads full of feminist propaganda. None of them are setting Christ aside and living as a god unto themselves, either. They follow hard & fast after Christ, and he is the center of their lives. So again I say, go ahead and explain to them how they are living out of accord with God’s plan for them, and how that why they are not married. You SERIOUSLY think that God’s only plan for us is that we marry and produce children? That is a pretty narrow vision of who He is. You can’t look at a person’s life (any person, not just a woman) and conclude that because some bad thing happened (or some good thing did not happen, i.e. marriage) that there is obviously some sin that caused that. “Christianity does not provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair.” (Tim Keller, The Reason for God). Perhaps you need to go back and reread the book of Job. We are a fallen, sinful people. We can do many good things through Christ, and bad things will still happen (or desired good things may not). That is life.

    Finally, you all have made some sweeping assumptions about me and others who don’t share your biblical views on women, marriage, etc. One doesn’t have be in your camp to have a Christ centered marriage, or to be fully resting in God’s providence. Thank GOD for that. My husband will tell you that we are happily married, regardless of the fact that I am (apparently) a boisterous woman with opinions who will tell him he is wrong when he is, in fact, wrong. He is a kind, hardworking man of moral character, he is strong & trustworthy, and most importantly, he loves God and endeavors to love me as Christ loves the church. You really can’t ask for more than that. He knew I was outspoken and opinionated before he married me, and somehow that has not been an impediment.
Advertisements

The Perfect Man (the story that won’t go away!)

<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1647162243001&w=466&h=263″></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

 Clearly, this survey hit a nerve…and a funny bone!  It is still making news, even if only to make huge fun.  And frankly, the survey (and the women who responded) do deserve a fair razzing for this.  I mean, really, smart jeans?  Watches soaps?  Admits looking at other women?  I don’t know about you, but I have more respect for myself than to settle for a man who “looks” at other women and sees fit to “admit” it to me, and any man who loves and respects his other half will go out of his way to make sure she knows that he has eyes only for her.  That is a real man.

This is not to say that I am against knowing what you want, and making choices that reflect that.  There is no such thing as “the” perfect man, but there are many, many men who are perfect for someone.  Facebook comments alone reflect that one person’s “perfect” is another person’s “not so much.”  Take a look at the following lists…

Woman   #1 Woman   #2
5’8 to   6 feet tall
Toned and athletic
“Blue” eyes
Short dark hair
Smart dress sense
Non-smoker
Gets ready quickly
Stylish
Wants a family
Earns £48,000 ($77,000) a year
Loves shopping
Eats meat
Clean shaven
Smooth chest
Enjoys watching football
Educated to degree level
Earns more than his other half
Jokes around and has a laugh
Sensitive when his wife/girlfriend is upset
Says ‘I love you’ only when he means it
Has a driver’s license
Can swim
Can ride a bike
Can change a tire
Calls mom regularly
“Can sing”
Physically:
-Under 35
-average to not more than 50 lbs overweight
-5’7″+
-no major health problems
Spiritually:
-Reformed
-church membership history of at least five years
Family:
-willing to start a family within a year after   marriage
-wants 4-6 kids
Sexual Purity:
-previously married/engaged acceptable with   legitimate grounds for termination
-has not had sex outside of marriage
Personality:
-outgoing/extrovert
Financially:
-has job
-steady job history of at least five years
-3-6 months reserve
-place to live (i.e. not with parents)
-wants me to be a homemaker
-can support a family without requiring me to work   outside the home
Relationship:
-he will continue to book the next event & escalate   the intensity of communication with each exposure.

I love that these women put some thought into what would work for them, and therein lies the benefit (I believe) of the otherwise ridiculous survey.  Far from identifying what society’s “perfect man” is, an idea that is even now being laughed at and razzed mercilessly, it is instead causing women – and men – to talk about it, to think about it, and to otherwise give voice and form to what in many cases is a more nebulous idea in our heads.  I know that’s true for me.

Before I married my husband, I had ideas about what would or would not work for me, but I never actually put pen to paper and specifically evaluated each criterion.  So,  after 10 years together and 8 years of marriage, I’m giving it a shot…

My 2002 “Perfect Man for Me”

  • Physically: like the look of him, manageable health issues
  • Spiritually:  be the spiritual leader of our home, but not overbearing and legalistic; understand that my spiritual history has been challenging and difficult
  • Education:  prefer someone with a college education, but not a deal breaker
  • Family:  wants children sooner than later; open to adoption (flexible on number, ethnicity, gender, health issues, family background); no children out of wedlock
  • Sexual Purity / History:  only two requirements other than truthful answers (if questions were asked); preference that if divorced, there were no children involved, but not a deal breaker; had never shacked up with a woman
  • Personality: makes me laugh; likes good (deep) conversation about substantive things; less introverted than I am
  • Interests:  common and complimentary interests (firearms, scuba diving, music, travel); hobbies (woodworking, home improvement, cooking, golf)
  • Financially:  can support a family with my having to work outside the home; supportive of my desire to be a stay-at-home mom; has a steady job and a home
  • Dating Relationship:  since we dated long distance, he had to make efforts to see me; make efforts to continue our phone and email communication between visits; treat me respectfully

My husband was and is all of the above, and though there were (and are) some rough edges still to be smoothed, he is without question the perfect man for me.  I told him several times over the course of our courtship that I could not pursue a relationship ever again where I felt myself getting lost.  I had that happen more than once, and I had come to the point where I would rather be single than wishing I was.  I’d rather be miserable and alone than miserable in a relationship.  Strange thing, once I got to that point, was that I became content with my single life, and that is when I met my husband.

Perhaps all this is to say that the key to finding that perfect man is to stop looking.  Know yourself, live your life in a way that reflects that, and be content.  Most importantly, live in a way that glorifies God.  That is the most alluring trait of all.

April 27 (X)…eXposing an eX

I suppose the real truth is that this eXposes me, and my lack of discernment and…well…X-ray vision, because that’s what it would have taken (for me) to see past the fauX eXterior to the deceitful piece of eXcrement that he turned out to be.

I was told “I told you so” a thousand times (after the fact) by my parents, and especially by my mother.  I could have lived without that, as I was already beating myself up enough on my own.  Nevertheless, it was (apparently) necessary, so thanks for that.  I guess.  Which is not to say that I’m not immensely grateful for the lessons learned, but I’ll come back to those.

In retrospect, it is eXtremely easy to see the glaring red flags that began popping up fairly early on, yet I of the newly minted “relationship,” eXploring all kinds of new eXperiences with him, relishing the seeming coincidence of having gone on one date with him in high school and then reconnecting ten years later, was (as I see now) willfully blind.  I suppose…no, I know, I should have started to question his veracity when the first (and thankfully only) Christmas we spent together was fraught with frustration (mine), lies (his), and anger (both of us).

The Christmas party we were supposed to attend…together…that he (at the last minute) reneged on, claiming instead that he had to work an overnight shift (as a paramedic, so it was believable).  Meanwhile, he rented a room in the hotel where the party was held, filled the bathtub with booze, and went on to the party.  Suspicious that he was lying, I called, discovered this and showed up where he was.  We fought.  He said “I was just about to call you…I got called off early tonight.”  And I fell for it.

Then there was the decision to move out of his parents home (a temporary arrangement that had eXtended much longer than it should have), but rather than moving to a place in town, where his primary job was, he decided to move 35 miles away.  Granted, it was the beach, but what the hell?  Again, I thought it understandable because he was working a second job another city, and that effectively put him halfway between…a reasonable decision until I saw it in retrospect.  In the immediate aftermath of the move (with which I helped, but his family did not), his car was stolen.  Here is where I lost my mind!

A request from him to provide a rental reference.  No, his currently landlord could not do it, because he had only be living there two months.  No, he could not tell the truth because it would seem like he did not have a stable residence.  No, he couldn’t have any bills in his name because I owned the house and all the bills were in my name.  Yes, according to the “reference” I stupidly agreed to provide, he paid me a fixed amount for rent & utilities, he did not have a cell phone (lie), and he had been “living” with me for more than six months.  RED FLAG!

We were not living together, nor had we ever, nor were there any plans to do so.  And yet, I was willfully turning a blind eye to the fact that I had just agreed to do something egregiously unethical, and probably illegal, all for the sake of this nearly eXtinct relationship.  Nevertheless, I persevered with it through two more blinding red flags!

  1. He couldn’t pay his rent OR his car payment on time (and yes, he made more than enough money to do so).  So I lent him enough money to cover both…with no written agreement for repayment.  He repayed two thirds, “forgot” about the rest, and when I mentioned it, claimed he had already paid me.  Back to this in a moment…
  2. I stumbled upon (much to my dismay at the time) his internet activity one morning when I was checking email on his computer.  Local dating opportunities, Russian bride websites, etc.  This led me to sneak a peak at his email, where I discovered he was also keeping in touch with a former girlfriend.

Add all of this to the fact that he had basically gone “off the grid” as much as he could, and it stacks up to a lot of OBVIOUSNESS that I could not did not want to see.

The day I found out about his pursuit of alternative dating arrangements was a day we were going to the beach with another friend.  Our relationship would have ended at that very moment had she not been with us.  My purse was also stolen that day, which required that I head home to change locks and make sure nothing was amiss.  And I thank God for that, because the juxtaposition of those circumstances lead me to end the relationship the next day, with finality, and with no regrets.

There was no fighting.  There were no recriminations.  I knew the truth, and that was all I needed.

I am so thankful now for the lessons of this relationship, because though they brought me to my darling husband with baggage, they brought me to him, and it was baggage he both understood and related to.  During our courtship, one thing I repeated to him several times was that I couldn’t survive in another relationship where I felt myself getting lost.  He got that…completely…and the happy ending to the story is that it hasn’t ended.  Eight years married and still going strong.

So thank you, A.O., for showing yourself to be an unethical man of deceit and lies.  For being a man who took advantage, and a man of amoral character.  Thank you for making it easy for me to eXtract myself from that non-relationship.  I think $300 (the money you still owe me) is a miniscule price to pay to be rid of you.

And thank you, God, for bringing me through that, because without your strength and providential protection, I would have been nearly destroyed by this, and I would not have known the contentment of a happy marriage with a good man.  That is my most eXtraordinary (and wholly undeserved) blessing.