Jilted mistress proclaims love for exec ex with billboard NY Post
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- and then there's this lady.
A fuming mistress catapulted retribution into a new orbit by plastering the country with billboards that show her nuzzling a married New York business honcho and adviser to President Obama, sources said.
The spurned squeeze, YaVaughnie Wilkins, went nuclear after she learned that Charles E. Phillips - president of tech conglomerate Oracle and a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board -- reconciled with his wife despite his lengthy affair with Wilkins.
Three signs have popped up in the city, as well as one in Atlanta and one in San Francisco -- where Wilkins lives, Phillips owns a home and Oracle's world headquarters are located.
The very public humiliation campaign may have cost Wilkins upward of $250,000, at an estimated $50,000 a pop.
109 comments:
We finally agree on something. Damn, this chick needs to let it go.
Apparently, she didn't quite understand her role.
Her name is YaVaughnie. Homeboy should have known there would be no good ending to this silly story.
A guy I once knew used to give the young pups in the neighborhood this advice, which I will never forget - "bitches will get you caught slippin'. Get a good woman, treat her right and go home to her".
Please note that in every gangster movie, and in real life, the sensible guys always have a wife and don't get sidetracked. It's the stupid asses like Santino that chase hoes and can't keep it in their pants who end up gettin' put on blast.
...not to say that Mr. Oracle was exactly in the right. Whatever. It's amazing what people will waste their money on, and still complain about things like high taxes and healthcare for everyone. Sure it's "her money to spend"...but I'm still amazed.
LOL.
Big Ups Doc.
I know this cat in Brooklyn.
$2500.
Broad Day Light.
good grief. i know they say its a thin line between love and hate, but damn this is some psycho shit indeed.
"Apparently, she didn't quite understand her role." - DMG
true true. if anything she should have been getting paid the $250K to keep her damn mouth closed.
~~ You can't do the time don't do the crime / Heart of mine ~~
In the photo above, can't help but notice the quality of the cigar he holding, the quality of the wood paneling and his side chick in red he got on his lap..
Dam I think you all missing the boat here. What kind of man cheats on his wife for 8 years?
Any married bruthas out there who don't cheat?
AAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
she fixed his monkey ass...,
Yes, "Any married bruthas out there who don't cheat?" is one way of putting it, another way to put it "Are there any sistas out there that can give the 'mediocre single bruthas' a chance as oppose to going after the married bruthas that cheat?"
I use to here them sob stories and believe them, then I discovered that I had a brain.
I've had more women hit on me when I was married than as a single artist in college. WHY?
That doesn't mean the guy should take the bait but everybody doesn't have the same level of resilience. Yes the married men go seeking others but these women go after these married men also.
I use to use as a pickup line that my girlfriend wouldn't be too happy if she found out I gained a new female friend. Because I knew coming off as single lowered my credit score.
No cheating husband or some seasoned player or Max Julien ever taught me that, it was the illogical behavior patterns of what was expected of me to be eligible in their sight.
It's totally illogical to me. You can't make up something like that, that women value you even more when you got somebody. It doesn't mean every woman would act on it, but they read something of significance. I know it's deeper than my reductionist rant though.
They both got what they deserved though.
This is not your average Jerry-Springer quality mistress here. Nor is this the typical case of cheating either..
I saw her well-constructed web site and to be honest, she was more involved than any wife can ever be for a brotha. I would argue after what I saw on the web site that she probably made this man to where he is at today.
LMAO that she used what was likely his money to "show his monkey ass."
RJEsq
In the world of radical autonomy, this was a $250,000 effort to get ole dude's wife to leave ole dude. This chick is getting back "her man" and not just breaking him up with his wife.
That is so sad. Apparently, she really cared about him. When I viewed the online pics, they looked like a normal couple going through time together. He should have never stayed with his wife because an eight year affair is like having another wife!
And II, what a cheap shot making fun of her name.
she used what was likely his money
I certainly hope so RJ...,
A lot of marriages don't last 8 years. Clearly in the time they were together she was treated well, like she was in the number #1 spot. She's mad because it ended? These things happen....
A brother on the prowl needs to learn 3 words when he is out with his hoocie:
"NO PICTURES PLEASE!!!!"
As for Tiger - my man needs a Blackberry. Put a security code on the device. After 10 failed attempts the device wipes itself.
He may have had one and used his wedding anniversary as the code.
Dumb azz.
And II, what a cheap shot making fun of her name.
Not making fun. Simply acknowledging the obvious.
It looks like Times Square tourists won't be seeing much of this anymore -
I wonder if she got a refund
I second that Mahndisa. What is so obvious about the connection between the woman's name and the outcome of his affair? Does that explain John Edward's circumstance?
"It's totally illogical to me. You can't make up something like that, that women value you even more when you got somebody." Gee-Chee
Very, very true. Apparently the only thing more enticing than being married...is being married WITH a child in tow. I suppose if I also had a puppy while I walked my then young son in his stroller, women may have followed me home.
So...why is that?
Anyway...this all boils down to attention seeking behavior. Nothing to see here.
How about this wealthy brother cheated on his wife with ANOTHER sister, even browner than his wife, and treated her to this incredible upscale life? Doesn't this fly in the face of the whole "black men are obsessed with white women" meme? On some level, shouldn't black women be giving dude a high five for his choices, even while condemning his behavior?
^^ nope!
IMO that 'meme' or discourse is not about 'being obsessed with white women' (or any other non-sista), per se.
At the core is really the refusal to make an honorable commitment to a black woman. in this case those women happened to be BOTH his wife and his mistress.
anyone who would give him props for fooling around with her on the grounds that 'at least she's black' has some rather low expectations for the types of relationships that black women deserve writ large.
"He should have never stayed with his wife because an eight year affair is like having another wife!" M
No it's not.
It's like having an eight year girlfriend.
They weren't married.
They were playing.
You play with girlfriends.
You build things with wives.
When men grow up, they get tired of playing.
DV, apparently she was his backbone during that time. He was a fool for not making a hard decision either way and it came to bite him in the ass. And no II, I don't get what you are saying. People have always talked shit about my name and have said similar shit. That isn't cool; Submariner was right on that!
DV, apparently she was his backbone during that time. " Mahndisa
Nah Mahndisa. She was his girlfriend.
Girlfriend aint wife.
Weekends in Mexico aint the mother of your son.
Who he has chosen to stay with is an indication of what he truly valued.
The name "Mahndisa" is hip. It's got character and history. It's a name to be taken seriously.
"YaVaughnie" ... sounds frivolous.
"YaVaughnie" sounds like her mom Yalanda and her pops Vaughn were high when they named her.
"YaVaughnie" sounds like somebody who would launch websites and put up Billboards in Times Square after a relationship.
Yeah well tell that to the guy who laughed when I told him my name and said: "No seriously, quit joking. What is your name?" Hmph!
Gee-Chee - Are you just arrogantly foassuming that she hit on him, or do you know that for a fact?
One fact I know r sure is that I get hit on by married bruthas 24-7. Just like Tiger Woods did with all his affairs. These men just usually all make the first move..
Anyhow, since most of the men in here are condoning his 8-year affair, it basically proves that its so culturally-acceptable now that they'd do it them damnselves too.
Is that really what "marriage" means to you guys? Just the one you use to tidy up your house, instead of taking out on faraway vacays to exotic resorts? I hope you all come back as Black women getting cheated on your next life..
I believe you. I believe you get hit on by them. I did say "Yes the married men go seeking others..."
I don't know who hit on who, that's why I said "They both got what they deserved though."
She ain't no angle. She knew the Negro was married. I'm sure she had girlfriends telling her, "He's using you girl!" Perhaps not. Maybe that's a UPN 'Girlfriends' flashback.
Not that I use to watch it! Sometimes it just...um...was kinda on...I mean what interests would I have in Tracee Ellis Ross sleek physique or Jill Marie Jones' full lips? I mean come on give me a break. Anyway...
What was the statement again?
"Dat thang" strikes again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE6Qcc6VDo8
Why not polygamy? What we have here is a basically de facto polygamy.
I think all of these guys (Charles Phillips, John Edwards, Kwame Kilpatrick, Mark Sanford, Tiger Woods, Shaq, etc.) should pool their monies and form a congressional lobby to demand that polygamy be legalized.
Check out the link below for another perspective on this subject.
http://www.dreamandhustle.com/3223/i-personally-would-never-dropped-a-woman-like-yavaughnie/
BTW, to say ""YaVaughnie" ... sounds frivolous.
"YaVaughnie" sounds like her mom Yalanda and her pops Vaughn were high when they named her." repeats verbatim every racist trope applied to names favored by black folk. This is a standard which if applied fairly to rappers such as "Kanye" would say more about the self selected judge than the subject in question. This is a personal matter along the lines of Rihanna and Chris. Old girl blew him up, but WTF? We all been there or seen that. As said earlier, "this all boils down to attention seeking behavior. Nothing to see here."
Polygamy is already legalized. It's simply called "not getting married."
If these guys had any balls, they would have just stayed single and real. Instead of married and cheating on their poor wives.
"repeats verbatim every racist trope applied to names favored by black folk." Sub
Well...
There must be some truth, even in racism.
"If these guys had any balls, they would have just stayed single and real." Trillish
You mean single & de facto homo.
Men who fail to bond with a woman are incomplete.
Like a pimp with no ride.
A hustler with no dope.
What's n uh name???
The autonomist says nothing...
Diss that name,
N same knucklehead tryin' tuh fight ya fo' sumptin'!!!
YaVaughnie means alienation...
Chic's folks taught her disloyalty
She at war with her nation!!!
SHE AT WAR WITH MARRIED SISTA TOO
'Case u fo'got 'bout that ultimate betrayal,
Chic would do u too times two!!!
This "bond" made in disloyalty,
That's the nature of radical autonomy...
A man who cheats on faithful wife
Is weak fo' eternity...
When he's fundamentally disloyal
He is bound for a life of toil...
Either prove his loyalty to the wifey
Or be mired with homegirl in disloyalty
Ever maintaining one's radical autonomy...
Dood tryin' tuh be free by stayin' n captivity...
People have always talked shit about my name and have said similar shit.
This ain't about you honey. Chill.
Yeah yeah yeah II, you like to say that but we all speak from our personal experiences. To make a judgment about someone based upon their name , other than perhaps their ethnicity, is not cool.
Your auditory aesthetic is different than mine for certain.
I think her name sounds pretty to be honest; I've never met anyone named YaVoughnie before!
co-sign Makheru, de facto polygamy is jst what this is.
Actually the term is polygyny. Polygamy is having either more than one woman or man, whereas polygyny is only having more than one woman.
I don't know if marriage is a condition for polygamy. If isnt then we are practicing it already, as Trill' put it.
When you read into the psychology behind lynchings of black men and the PR resistance against the Civil Rights movement, one can wonder how do these things of black male promiscuity come out like a tidal wave during this administration.
I believe there are forces that focus on power only, but I believe there are forces that are dedicated to the control of imagery and extends that to race as well.
For example the white woman image remains the most innocent whereas black women are like African killer bees. (It couldn't be "African Tenacious bees" or "...Strong-Willed bees" or on some 80's term "...Never Give up bees".) Anyway...
I've gotten more white women aggressively expressing their sexuality whereas black women were more reserved out of concern for being read as easy or sluttish. That's not an image I've ever received through film & popular culture.
Yet here is what seems like a campaign to expose these Negroes at once during what can be interpreted as an imbalance with the presence of a black President. Even though it means nothing as power, but there could be some concern with making sure Negroes understand that "your still black" as one writer reminded the black populace in response to Jack Johnson taking the heavy weight title.
With the world, the PR machine seems to remind you when Obama acts as the "Commander and Thief" it's a message to the world that America's colonialism is not about white Christian male supremacy, it's about a "unified melting pot America" that has faith in white Christian male supremacy.
That's why (I believe) you need a black brigadier general giving you updates on the war in Iraq during the Bush term. A black castrated US Secretary of state telling you why we need to go into Iraq. A black president going after the boogie man. The faces of Empire diversity. Plunder and pillage together but go to prison separately.
Sorry, I meant legally single as in unmarried - but not alone.
Point being you can play the field as much as you want without having to lie to your SO if you are unmarried. Ergo - polygamy.
Gee-Chee - but did his wife deserve it? What did she do to deserve that?
And how would you feel if you found out your wife was cheating on you for 8 years? Blow it off cuz it was just a boyfriend that she wasn't building stuff with?
I guess none of you brothas will really know what it's like unless you are put in those shoes. Maybe your next life then?
No, the wife didn't deserve it. No, the wife didn't do anything to deserve it. Unfortunately the innocent has suffered with the guilty.
I would feel bad if I found out my wife was cheating on me.
You do not build with a married man. Period. You cheat with a cheating married man because that's what cheating is. It started bad (comma) it ended bad (period)
If there were to be some "returning back as a woman", I'd be a virgin. The first non-gay heterophobic woman.
That's how you use properly use a comma (karma) in a sentence.
You all missing the vicious cycle of radical autonomy.
Gee-Chee, it's almost certain that the wifey, as a modern woman married to a radical autonomist, is fundamentally unfaithful. Whether she adhered to the promiscuity principle determines the degree of ole dude's unfaithfulness. Modern woman has had the luxury of pushing the meme that sexual unfaithfulness is the worst kind of unfaithfulness when her very core principles are rooted in unfaithfulness. Is she pro-choice? She is unfaithful. Does she believe she can have sexual relations with whomever? She is unfaithful. Does she believe in instant divorce? She is unfaithful. Does she have material and atheist understandings? She is unfaithful. Is she liberal? She is unfaithful.
With the world, the PR machine seems to remind you when Obama acts as the "Commander and Thief" it's a message to the world that America's colonialism is not about white Christian male supremacy, it's about a "unified melting pot America" that has faith in white Christian male supremacy.
spells;
n.e.g.r.i.t.u.d.e.
Farst just nutted in his union suit...,
"Gee-Chee, it's almost certain that the wifey, as a modern woman married to a radical autonomist, is fundamentally unfaithful. Whether she adhered to the promiscuity principle determines the degree of ole dude's unfaithfulness. Modern woman has had the luxury of pushing the meme that sexual unfaithfulness is the worst kind of unfaithfulness when her very core principles are rooted in unfaithfulness. Is she pro-choice? She is unfaithful. Does she believe she can have sexual relations with whomever? She is unfaithful. Does she believe in instant divorce? She is unfaithful. Does she have material and atheist understandings? She is unfaithful. Is she liberal? She is unfaithful."
What the hell are you talking about man? how the eff do you know any of that woman's social-politic thought/spiritual beliefs/morals/ethics to speak of? ... beyond that, she stayin' with the ni99a!!! how much more faithful can someone be??
as for the gf ...
its easy to criticize one or both of these women involved (hell i did it too, mainly because that's how this thread was framed) i think Mona has been on point in asking that someone (preferably one of the brothas) hold this dude's balls to the wall ... where's the contempt towards HIS behavior?
its true, this woman should have known better, but rest assured ... point me to a crazy lady and it probably wouldn't be hard to find the man that made her that way.
What the hell are you talking about man?
some old insane Internet peasant version of "faith in white "xtian" male supremacy"...,
Chosen,
Modern liberal women are fundamentally unfaithful by definition. We don't know if the wifey is a modern liberal woman. We do know she married a fundamentally liberal man. And we have no evidence that she was faithful. It is simply assumed she was faithful, but we must know if she is modern liberal woman to assess the degree of guilt in her man.
... meanwhile, back in 2010 ...
Chosen,
Yeah, this is 2010... Do you think dude had a mistress FOR NO REASON???
no i'm sure he believed he had his reasons. i just haven't heard/read anyone challenge the integrity of those reasons outside of jargonistic language.
I say dude had a mistress for a reason. You say it's because his wife was faithful and I say if she is modern liberal woman then she is fundamentally unfaithful. Therefore, her husband was just continuing the cycle.
Chosen,
Are you pro-choice?
no, i'm saying that his disloyalty is not necessarily a reflection of his wife's dedication to the marriage, or to her politics.
as for my politics, well that's another blog.
have you ever seen a grown man naked?
do you like gladiator movies?
lol not since my purity ball ...
Chosen,
I agree... But most likely, his unfaithfulness was precipitated by his wife's fundamental unfaithfulness AS MODERN LIBERAL WOMAN.
Or maybe the husband and wife were separated while he was doing all this. wouldn't that make the most sense?
Or maybe the husband and wife were separated while he was doing all this. wouldn't that make the most sense?
I dont understand, what is this radical autonomy???
Mona,
These ladies that find themselves single, cheated on or betrayed are more likely than not to be fundamentally liberal AND THEREFORE NECESSITATING A RADICAL AUTONOMY of their own making.
In an increasingly autonomizing society where freedom to do and change unimpeded is reaching its limits, the "freedom from" becomes the drive of the radical autonomist. A process of detachment from reality begans and evidences states of radical autonomy.
For example, Craig claims to be an Orthodox Christian BUT he also believes a mother has a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero. This is evidence of radical autonomy. The attempt to synthesize multiple "realities."
Likewise, the pro-choice "wife" is actually a radical autonomist as she is fundamentally unfaithful BUT ASSUMED FAITHFUL by herself and society at large. This is mass radical autonomy.
What kind of wife tolerates this for 8 years? His son hung out with the alleged mistress, what kind of affair is that? And how can a man so busy running a company get time to have a family and have a side girlfriend for 8 whole years?
To me it's obvious they both decided to part ways for a while and explore what's out there. Then decided, it wasn't all it's cracked up to be and would rather get old together. That's the rationale I accept. And that doesn't mean he is not going to go cheat again.
Who knows what this man has been telling this YaVa woman this whole time. As said earlier in this thread, a perfectly sane woman can turn psychotic so fast because of a man. I have seen this way too many times in friends.
I just think it's pathetic a man can't be faithful and honor his marriage these days. And I'm glad he got exposed, hope that taught some losers a lesson.
What she did is stupid. The money could have been spent more wisely and now she has announced to the whole world that she is loco. Doesn't help her dating future.
So the wife (I'm trying to understand the point) has
1) married this rich, prosperous dude who swims in these social settings of loose women, friends with few moral principles, and
2) she knew what kind of situations her husband would be exposed to, but those risks come with the territory?
Is this what you're saying?
Modern liberal woman is pro-choice...
Pro-choice means unfaithfulness is on the table...
Because unfaithfulness is on the table, it must be chosen or pro-choice means nothing...
Therefore, modern liberal woman MUST CHOOSE unfaithfulness or she is not liberal.
Thordaddy
Whatchumean by unfaithful that is supposedly the natural condition of a woman who is 'modern and liberal'? What, in your world, is a 'modern, liberal woman' and as opposed to what?
...
You went Officer Hoppy with that breakdown. Is there any source material I can check out.
Modern liberal woman wants to be free. In practical matters, this means her freedom is bound up in casual sex, abortion and divorce. Take away any one of these things or all three combined and 99% of modern liberal women would say they aren't free.
If woman or man wants to be absolutely free THEN THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FAITHFUL. They are fundamentally unfaithful BECAUSE THAT IS EVIDENCE of their liberal freedom.
No matter how your wife behaves, the minute you violate your vows to God, you're in the wrong.
There is no justification for what old boy did, but that doesn't make him a horrible person either. The idea that his wife "drove" him to cheat by her actions is wack. That's cats embracing their victimhood and trying to run from their free will.
Any Christian arguing anything different is a fraud. You can't justify your sin by pointing to the sin of others. You're wrong when you're wrong. Man up and take your lick.
I don't know about that Big Man.
I see it a bit differently.
I don't think the cat was "wrong".
I don't think men who have sex outside their marriages are "wrong".
Just like I don't think people who eat pork, Genetically Modified Foods and get vaccines are "wrong".
I think they are unwise.
I think they are in a state of ignorance.
I think they are in the dark.
I don't think Christianity is a set of rules that one either obeys or disobeys.
I think Christianity is a guide.
A path.
Some people stray from that path and get back on it later.
You get back what you put in.
The stupidest think about this chick is...how is she gonna get another man after the billboard stunt? What man is dating her after that?
She needed to save that money. Because an attractive woman with money is always appealing. Instead she tricked it off and ultimately hurt her value as much as his.
DV
All useful paths have directions. It's unwise to ignore those directions.
The Bible contains specific guidelines on behavior. It outlines what is proper and what is improper. When you stray from what is proper, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I don't have a problem with using the words right and wrong to describe actions. Wasn't you who said a while back that men call a spade a spade in reference to using the word "bitch"? In this case, if you vow to be faithful to your wife for the rest of your life and then sleep with another woman, you're wrong. Vows should never be taken lightly and I was always taught that a man is only as good as his word.
I agree with you that you can stray from the path and return. That was my point when I noted that old dude's infidelity doesn't make him a monster. He failed, he sinned, now he needs to get back up and try again. He seems to be doing that by leaving this mistress and trying to build something again with his wife. Kudos to his wife for being open to that possibility because I know that wouldn't be an easy choice for me.
My post was directed at Thor who seemed to be offering cover for this adulterer by focusing on the actions of his wife. Bottom line, his wife's actions are immaterial. You can't point to others when you sin and say "They made me do it." No matter the provocation you have a choice.
I hear you Big Man.
Many people see it exactly as you just described.
But let's look a bit closer.
"When you stray from what is proper, you have no one to blame but yourself." BM
Maybe.
I don't think "Blame" is neither here nor there. What does "Blame" have to do with it?
OK. You've "Blamed" yourself. Now what?
Determining whom is to be blamed is not a very valuable use of energy.
"if you vow to be faithful to your wife for the rest of your life and then sleep with another woman, you're wrong." BM.
No. You are not wrong.
You are weak.
Your marriage is weak.
You are immature.
You have exchanged the significant for the frivolous.
You are unwise.
You are renting, when you can own.
I think the "Right vs. Wrong" approach is unnecessarily dogmatic and ineffective.
Is an obese diabetic who eats a piece of cake ... "wrong"?
Or is he weak?
Is a smoker who has vowed to his wife and children not to smoke anymore "wrong" if he sneaks a cigarette?
Or is he self-destructive?
I think this is an important distinction because it switches the emphasis from judging people to coaching people on the things that will actually make a difference in their lives.
Encouraging a man to strengthen his will is more powerful than scolding him for being "wrong".
lil' man,
You have too many built-in assumptions that aren't clear and not enough proper assumptions to make an evaluation on this dude's actions.
There is no evidence he made vows to God although he is married. In fact, the new trend is to marry without vows that actually mean something. This is a trend backed by liberal "Christians."
Second, there is no evidence that his wife was "faithful," it is just assumed.
Lastly, if the wifey is a modern liberal woman then she is inherently unfaithful and whatever vows that were taken "faithfully" with her must be seen from this light.
TD said,
"You have too many built-in assumptions that aren't clear and not enough proper assumptions to make an evaluation on this dude's actions."
But don't you think the same could be said of your opinion of this woman considering your assumption of her as 'modern liberal woman' whose natural disposition is to be 'unfaithful' remains undefined and unclear.
DV said,
"I think the "Right vs. Wrong" approach is unnecessarily dogmatic and ineffective.
...Encouraging a man to strengthen his will is more powerful than scolding him for being "wrong"."
TRUTH.
...Everything else is talk.
TD
As many assumption as you made to make your point, you need fall back into your glass house. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I'm not going to call his wife unfaitful or assume that their marriage was not made before God. You got some proof that it wasn't, you know concrete evidence, then show and prove.
DV and KW
I don't think it's an either situation when it comes to assigning blame and providing help.
When my eldest boy slaps his little brother in the face, I tell him that was wrong. Then I figure out why he's acting out and his actions were the result of some deeper issue. Sometimes he's desperate for attention, sometimes he's frustrated cause the baby keeps stealing his toys.
Doesn't change the fact that his response was wrong. Now, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether saying something is right or wrong is a bad thing. I think you can show people compassion and understanding while at the same time letting them know that their behavior is unacceptable.
Konwomyn and lil' man,
No one said making assumptions was wrong except liberals who nonetheless make assumptions.
The only question is who's assumptions are closer to the truth?
konwomyn and lil' man's assumption is that the wifey was faithful to an unfaithful man who had made vows before God.
There is zero evidence that this is the case. It is just assumed because dude was "married." But we also know that being "married" has never been more meaningless in regards to what "being married" actually means.
TD's assumption is that wifey is pro-choice, therefore she is inherently unfaithful and any "wrongness" was between God and husband IF he made vows to God. His wife's vows are MEANINGLESS if she is modern liberal woman.
My assumption is a generalized one and MAY or MAY NOT apply to the wife. But we know she was/is married to a liberal man and that is strong evidence that she is also liberal. We also know that most modern women are pro-choice liberals.
Who's assumptions are closer to the truth?
TD said:
"konwomyn and lil' man's assumption is that the wifey was faithful to an unfaithful man who had made vows before God."
Slow your row TD.
You're assuming that is my assumption but I've said nothing abt wifey.
Check. the. script.
I've expressed no opinion on wifey being faithful/unfaithful, only asked you to explain what you mean by the term. And why that would be the natural impulse of a 'modern liberal woman.'
How do you arrive at the assumption that she is a 'modern liberal woman'? And why is your assumption limited to a woman that so little is said of in the story?
Unless you give proper definition and evidence to your assumptions are no more closer to the truth than me guessing the sun will shine tomorrow because I said so.
TD, It's amazing to me how you've just suddenly decided to give "pro-choice" your own definition. How's anyone supposed to understand you?
Big Man,
IMO saying an action is wrong or right is a value-based judgement derived from one's morals and the situation at hand. It feels as though calling this 'wrong' is working backwards; from an assumed end-judgement to the beginning to knowing why he did it. This might work in the case of your kids, with grown folk its a li'l more complex bec there's an underlying eight-year narrative, which requires a diff approach.
konwomyn and NEA,
You all are trying to deny the operative paradigm and so it will be difficult for you to understand what I am saying.
All three actors are DOING WHAT THEY WANT.
Crazy girl is trying to get "her man."
Ole dude is playing both of them AND GETTING PLAYED because he is a radical autonomist.
And wifey is deciding whether hubby is in or out.
Now, the consensus is that wifey is victim, mistress is loco and dude is both unfaithful and getting what he deserves.
BUT ALMOST ALL MODERN WOMEN ARE PRO-CHOICE...
This can mean whatever the liberal decides that it means, BUT NONETHELESS IT STILL MEANS CHOOSING WRONG, EVIL, DECEPTION, ETC.
What is pro-choice about living good, truthful and righteous?
So IF wifey is pro-choice then her husband's "unfaithfulness" is/was just a continuation of the fundamentally liberal relationship amongst THREE radical autonomists.
Thordaddy,
Help me out here. What in Thordaddy-speak is pro-choice? And what, pray tell, is a 'modern liberal woman'? And where is the material evidence to show wifey fits this description?
NEA,
I don't give words my own definition unless I make up the word or the definition has been completely liberalized.
Pro-choice is just that...
ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE AS A POTENTIAL CHOICE.
Maximizing these choices is step one, but the operative step IS CHOOSING WRONG in order to prove your liberalism.
There is no pro-choice in living righteous, good and truthful.
So for modern liberal woman, BEING UNFAITHFUL is proof of one's liberalism because being faithful is proof that one subordinates their liberalism to something higher.
Subordinating one's liberalism is to become illiberal. This is a no-no in the Orthodoxy.
konwomyn,
Pro-choice is the liberal euphemism for do whatever I want...
Sometimes it means a mother killing her child in utero.
But she doesn't call herself pro-abortion BECAUSE THAT WOULD CONVEY TOO MUCH MEANING.
So pro-choice is actually an act of deception or unfaithfulness.
^^ wow. Deep.
I hate to be number 90. TD you are defining something in a way that others may not define it. If it takes 5 or 7 people to dig what you're saying (you even admitting that the lost in understanding is do to a denial of the operative paradigm) then the same can apply to the wife.
Does the wife understand the depth of your definition of "pro-choice"?
It's like if you go to a Nation of Islam Temple and they're talking about "God will bring down his wrath on the wicket." Now you understand that to mean some spiritual entity, whereas they understand "god" to be the black man.
"Ye are gods and children of the most high" -Psalms 82:6
So they are acting on one definition and interpreting a Bible verse while you do so differently.
You have described pro-choice to mean a whole list of joints. People do not all break down definitions in the same process.
So I may call you a racists based on an offensive term you have used. That doesn't mean you are racists. But because you didn't have bad intentions doesn't dismiss the extent of how loaded that offensive word may be.
Pro-choice may be as loaded as you say. Does that mean the wife signs on to all of it's implications?
Pro-choice may be as loaded as you say. Does that mean the wife signs on to all of it's implications?
She does, whether consciously or unconsciously.
So let me now form a complete sentence out of our conclusion.
Every body who puts gasoline in there vehicles supports America's wars in foreign lands and therefore are morally and ethically deserving of being a target of retaliation. Really?
Or
Anyone that participates in the electoral process inherently supports all of the policies that go into effect. Really?
Even the yin yang symbol aren't simplified to black & white. They both have a dot in them that are the polar opposite.
Actually the second statement has merit in my opinion.
Gee-Chee,
You are consciously or subconciously adhering to the radical autonomist paradigm when you say, "TD you are defining something in a way that others may not define it."
The only question is whether I've defined pro-choice truthfully? Whether others define it falsely is irrelevant. And to the extent others define pro-choice truthfully then we stand together in truth.
What is your pro-choice truth?
OK Dungeon Master,
Do you purchase gasoline?
Do you vote?
Do any products in your home contribute to Israeli apartheid?
Do you pay taxes?
Have you ever purchased Troop shoes with the matching jumpsuit set? I'll leave the fat dooky cable for some other time.
What's the difference between pro-choice and pro-free will?
I cannot believe all the back tracking and grandstanding in the conversation. KW, your feminist lingo has blinded you to the fact that when you get married that IS the ultimate commitment. CHEATING IS WRONG! There is no analysis needed to know that if you promise to be monogamous and you aren't you are in the WRONG.
You don't cheat on your spouse. If you cannot be faithful you can do a few things:
1.Accept that you aren't monogamous and live a polyamorous lifestyle
2.Get into a swinging lifestyle
3.Divorce and move on
4.Never get married in the first place and lie to yourself, your spouse and loved ones about who you really are.
The damage that infidelity causes to a relationship is WRONG!
If my man cheated on me, he'd be WRONG and I would not be pleased.
DV, your machoness and desire to rationalize your own viewpoints makes you look assinine to an extent. You don't think what homeboy did was wrong but thought it was because he was weak?
Shit, the weakest people do some of the WRONGEST things!
Ask your wife if you cheated on her with a woman for eight years if ya'll would still be together. Tell us what she says.
Mahndisa,
Nah I'm not confused or blinded by anything, of course marriage is the ultimate comitment. I think your problem with my statement to BigMan misreads a refusal to moralize about something as condoning infidelity. Having a different opinion on what he did doesn't mean I'm saying it's ok.
Things happen in marriages and if one fails to honor that commitment then is it not right to ask why. Eight years is a long time to be carrying on with someone and if here knows why he cheated or has more info on the story please post a link. Otherwise we're playing guessing games and expressing opinions on sumthin' we don't know enuff abt.
Lil man,
^^^Nothing... If you're a radical autonomist.
If you're not then there is a world of difference.
Ah, I see where the disagreement lies KW. You are interested in the mechanisms underlying his actions; that is why he did it for so long. I say that I don't need to know why he did it or what drove him to cheat on his wife to know that he did WRONG!
If he wanted to have an atypical marital arrangement, there are tons of women who might agree to that, especially if they are a little freaky themselves. Adultery is something different altogether. It is the abject violation of trust in a relationship and usually is about the shortcomings of the person doing the cheating.
If he couldn't keep faithful to his wife, he shouldn't have married her under those premises. He likely went back to her when he realized that he'd be ultra fucked if his wife got a fat cost of living divorce settlement and child support payments!
TD
Explain.
KW
Do you believe that saying whether something is right or wrong is always moralizing, or just in this instance?
What are your morals? Do your morals contain concrete distinctions between right and wrong? On which issues do you make those distinctions?
I could hazard a guess on where you stand on certain issues, but I'd rather you explain to me.
I don't have a problem with someone telling me my behavior is wrong. I think acknowledging right and wrong is the first step to correcting a problem.
Mahindsa
He might have just realized he loved his wife and wanted to make a stab at saving the marriage he was slowly destroying.
I mean, people reconcile for all kinds of reasons, they are not always cynical. Sometimes cats finally learn to appreciate what they have at home, and if they are fortunate they have a woman willing to accept them back and forgive their indiscretions.
Forgiveness is one of the most beautiful things to witness. It takes a strong woman to love her husband after he's betrayed her so throughly. Or vice versa.
Lil' man,
A radical autonomist walks in the shadow of two basic assertions that have the same practical result in the our reality. He either asserts the nonexistence of God or he asserts God's unknowability.
THIS IS HOW HE EQUATES PRO-CHOICE TO FREE WILL.
The radical autonomist DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT knowledge TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
Now, there is a third type of radical autonomist that makes the same assertions as above BUT KNOWS IT'S A LIE.
This type of radical autonomist knows that "free will" without the One True God is nothing more than saying ALL CHOICES ARE ON THE TABLE, but CHOOSING the wrong choice IS WHAT EVIDENCES OUR FREE WILL.
So the "principled" radical autonomist is a self-annihilator and societal wrecking ball.
Once again, it is the radical autonomist that is most ready to regurgitate the feminist meme in the most convoluted way. Wife is victim, husband is scumbag and mistress is fatal attraction. This meme is bust for the very simple reason that WIFEY IS ALMOST CERTAINLY A MODERN LIBERAL WOMAN and therefore stands spiritually and intellectually UNFAITHFUL to ANY MAN THAT SHE MAKES A "COMMITMENT" to. Therefore, CHEATING ON HER is suspect until we know her principled foundation.
The assumption that she is physically faithful may be true, but so what if she is spiritually and intellectually unfaithful? These are far more detrimental examples of unfaithfulness to the long term viability of a marriage.
daayyuuuummmm......
Poor becky.
DV's favorite white boy got some serious woman issues.
Thor
Your advocating that if a woman is unfaithful, nothing compels the man to remain faithful.
Now show me how you got that from God.
Lil' man,
I didn't advocate anything. Instead, I'm attempting to inform these modern liberal women that there are reasons that "their" men "cheat." The main reason is that these modern liberal woman are spiritually and intellectually unfaithful. They are, as has been stated many times, PRO-CHOICE.
Now lil' man, you can pretend like these ladies that this doesn't mean anything and therefore it has no consequence, but we know better.
Post a Comment