TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

So a man has absolutely no ability to control himself? And no responsibility to do so.

So is that going to become a battle cry now? They did what ever they did because they are "just guys"?

Ridiculous.

---

 Nope, but in this ONE instance, the younger sister seems determined to seduce him. It's probably a game to her.

flan

Ohfour wrote:

---

Husker, you lose this one. Prudie thinks he's a cad, every single person that has posted here thinks he's a cad. You defending him doesn't say a whole lot for your values...

---

 I don't necessarily think so. I'm sorry.

If he wanted to cheat with the sister, he could have done so.

flan

Ilumine wrote:

---

Husker

Men and women deploy, for years at a time. And the ones that cheat are the ones that have a cheater's heart...NOT because they were living with temptations in their midst.

It is not about LOVING the other person enough to not cheat. It is about having enough self-respect and self-control.

And your alcoholic's analogy doesn't work unless the person is a sex-aholic. Alcoholism is not just about temptation or lack there of or the control over it. There are physical, psychological and emotional components involved. So if anything, you are actually PROVING Prudie's point.

If he cannot control himself, then there is something inherently wrong with HIM, inside HIM.

---

Correct. An alcoholic is an addict.  A compulsive gambler is an addict.  are you saying that guys that want to screw their wives sisters are addicts? 

flan327 wrote:

---

But the sister is actively trying to seduce him.

He has controlled himself so far, but he is admitting that it's not easy.

flan

---

The sister's actions belong to HER, not to him. HE owns his response.

Who said it would be easy? It's not.

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

But the sister is actively trying to seduce him.

He has controlled himself so far, but he is admitting that it's not easy.

flan

---

The sister's actions belong to HER, not to him. HE owns his response.

Who said it would be easy? It's not.

---

 I am also wondering how he has told the sister to cut it out. Has he said it in a way that leaves no room for doubt? Has he stepped right up to her, looked directly in her eyes and said with force "stop this! I am not interested in having sex with you. You are making a fool of yourself!" Or is he not saying anything and just walking away? Is he saying no in a way that makes it seem like there is wiggle room? Because if he said it in a forceful way, it would take a truly psychotic woman to continue, most would run crying. 

---

 THIS!!!!!!!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

So a man has absolutely no ability to control himself? And no responsibility to do so.

So is that going to become a battle cry now? They did what ever they did because they are "just guys"?

Ridiculous.

---

 Yes, he does--that's the point.

He does so by avoiding temptation in many cases.

Sure, the cute hairdresser is also a temptation--but I doubt too many wives are anxious to move her into the house, either.

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

This is NOT about the sister.
This is about a man who may not be able to keep it in his pants, because....well, he can't.

---

You are full of crap.  If he was "unable" to keep it in his pants--he would have already had sex with her.

Why should someone have to live in their own house with a person or situation that makes them uncomfortable?

 

Turn the situation around.  Let's say it was his brother who was constantly hitting on the LW's wife.  Why should she have to put up with that on a daily basis by having him live with her?  It doesn't matter whether or not she would "give in"--she'd be faced with the situation of fending off his advances every day.

 

---

What a bunch of bull. My brother's wife can speak up for herself just as strongly as a man can. 

Or are you making this about rape? Is the LW's SIL going to rape him?

I don't care how many advances are made, slap the sh1t out of them.

You are only as uncomfortable as you allow yourself to be.

(Just know getting to back posts) 

---

 So he should slap his SIL????  How is that a better solution than not having her move into the house????  ABSURD.

---

If she needs a verbal slapping and it doesn't work, then yeah, slap her. I would have no fear of slapping a man to make him back off. Especially when you are in your own home. He doesn't have to slap her into next Wednesday, just a wake up tap up the back of the head. You know, Gibbs style.

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

This is NOT about the sister.
This is about a man who may not be able to keep it in his pants, because....well, he can't.

---

You are full of crap.  If he was "unable" to keep it in his pants--he would have already had sex with her.

Why should someone have to live in their own house with a person or situation that makes them uncomfortable?

 

Turn the situation around.  Let's say it was his brother who was constantly hitting on the LW's wife.  Why should she have to put up with that on a daily basis by having him live with her?  It doesn't matter whether or not she would "give in"--she'd be faced with the situation of fending off his advances every day.

 

---

What a bunch of bull. My brother's wife can speak up for herself just as strongly as a man can. 

Or are you making this about rape? Is the LW's SIL going to rape him?

I don't care how many advances are made, slap the sh1t out of them.

You are only as uncomfortable as you allow yourself to be.

(Just know getting to back posts) 

---

 So he should slap his SIL????  How is that a better solution than not having her move into the house????  ABSURD.

---

If she needs a verbal slapping and it doesn't work, then yeah, slap her. I would have no fear of slapping a man to make him back off. Especially when you are in your own home. He doesn't have to slap her into next Wednesday, just a wake up tap up the back of the head. You know, Gibbs style.

 

---

 Oh.  So he can get charged with assault and face legal consequences for reacting to a situation that he didn't want to have happen in the first place?

That has to be the stupidest thing you've ever posted.

just Czech wrote:

---

Do you think the SIL is going to live there forever?
If he can't handle a month or two, he's weak.

---

 Who cares if it is "forever" or not? 

Why would the wife want to bring that betrayal into her home? 

Where is the sister's loyalty and responsibility to not go after her sister's husband?

Even if he would 100% not "go there"--so what?  Why would the wife even want her sister there? 

I sure wouldn't have my brother live with me if it was clear that he wanted to bed my wife.  She shouldn't have to put up with that--and I wouldn't want someone that disloyal in my house, anyway.

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Do you think the SIL is going to live there forever?
If he can't handle a month or two, he's weak.

---

 Who cares if it is "forever" or not? 

 

Why would the wife want to bring that betrayal into her home? 

 

Where is the sister's loyalty and responsibility to not go after her sister's husband?

 

Even if he would 100% not "go there"--so what?  Why would the wife even want her sister there? 

I sure wouldn't have my brother live with me if it was clear that he wanted to bed my wife.  She shouldn't have to put up with that--and I wouldn't want someone that disloyal in my house, anyway.

---

 The wife didn't bring betrayal into her home - she brought family in.  The fact that the man would even be tempted is disgusting.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Do you think the SIL is going to live there forever?
If he can't handle a month or two, he's weak.

---

 Who cares if it is "forever" or not? 

 

Why would the wife want to bring that betrayal into her home? 

 

Where is the sister's loyalty and responsibility to not go after her sister's husband?

 

Even if he would 100% not "go there"--so what?  Why would the wife even want her sister there? 

I sure wouldn't have my brother live with me if it was clear that he wanted to bed my wife.  She shouldn't have to put up with that--and I wouldn't want someone that disloyal in my house, anyway.

---

 The wife didn't bring betrayal into her home - she brought family in.  The fact that the man would even be tempted is disgusting.

---

 Bullsh!t.  Her sister is the one who has been OVERTLY betraying her.  To date, her husband has done NOTHING wrong.  He wants to AVOID that, the sister does not. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

---

 He's NOT "contemplating" it. That is pure BS. 

He is trying to avoid it.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

 Him not being able to control HIMSELF tells me he is pretty weak to begin with so yes they should get the sister out of the house and the husband as well. He's already willing to blame the sister for his weakness. The sister is beside the point if he is so easily influenced to do something.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

---

 He's NOT "contemplating" it. That is pure BS. 

He is trying to avoid it.

---

 There is a difference between "trying" and "doing". He can DO the avoiding part if he chooses.

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

---

 He's NOT "contemplating" it. That is pure BS. 

He is trying to avoid it.

---

 There is a difference between "trying" and "doing". He can DO the avoiding part if he chooses.

---

 And HOW you avoid it is to NOT have her move into the house.  That IS "doing the avoiding part". 

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

---

 He's NOT "contemplating" it. That is pure BS. 

He is trying to avoid it.

---

 There is a difference between "trying" and "doing". He can DO the avoiding part if he chooses.

---

 And HOW you avoid it is to NOT have her move into the house.  That IS "doing the avoiding part". 

---

Gosh, he must be extremely WEAK! 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

 Him not being able to control HIMSELF tells me he is pretty weak to begin with so yes they should get the sister out of the house and the husband as well. He's already willing to blame the sister for his weakness. The sister is beside the point if he is so easily influenced to do something.

---

 Where do you even get your nonsense?  How has he NOT "controlled" himself?  He absolutely has.   He just doesn't want her moving into his house. 

 

 

---

 You're the one spouting nonsense about how if the sister stays he won't be able to help himself. You know because he's a man and men have no self control...lol

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Besides that, you are accusing HIM of betraying his wife--when he has NOT "acted" on anything--and is trying to avoid doing so.

HIGHLY hypocritical.

---

The fact that he's even contemplating it is betrayal. 

---

 He's NOT "contemplating" it. That is pure BS. 

He is trying to avoid it.

---

 There is a difference between "trying" and "doing". He can DO the avoiding part if he chooses.

---

 And HOW you avoid it is to NOT have her move into the house.  That IS "doing the avoiding part". 

---

Gosh, he must be extremely WEAK! 

---

 You are full of sh!t.  If he were "extremely weak"--he would have already laid her.